Latest - Reason Magazine

Open Thread

2026-10-23T07:00:00Z

The post Open Thread appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Vivek Ramaswamy, Elizabeth Holmes, and Jesus

2026-10-22T21:50:30Z

On this week's episode of Freed Up, Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi condemn Vivek Ramaswamy's new attack ad against opponent Amy Acton before discussing their predictions for the 2026 midterm elections. Next, the boys get biblical with references to their favorite parables as they discuss Tyler Cowen's latest article on why he thinks Elizabeth Holmes—and most other non-violent female criminals—should not be in prison. The episode wraps with a thoughtful discussion on aging, state attorneys general, and the latest Meta settlement.

00:00—Vivek Ramaswamy ad controversy

20:00—2026 midterm elections

25:50—Should Elizabeth Holmes be in prison?

49:20—Getting older

58:55—An update on Rep. Ilhan Omar

1:03:10—The importance of grain

1:06:14—Robby and Christian extol author Michael Crichton

1:11:30—The war in Ukraine should end.

1:14:50—Meta settled with the state of New Mexico

1:20:00— Christian continues his crusade against state attorneys general.

If you enjoy Freed Up, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy, Elizabeth Holmes, and Jesus appeared first on Reason Magazine.

No First Amendment Right Not to Sell Bridal Outfit for Same-Sex Wedding

2026-10-22T21:29:15Z

From N.Y. State Div. of Hum. Rts. V. D. Auxilly NYC LLC, decided today by New York appellate judges Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Manuel Mendez, Barbara Kapnick, Bahaati Pitt–Burke, and Matthew Parker–Raso:

Complainant, at the time a Missouri resident, emailed D. Auxilly, a New York based business that produces and sells attire, including bridal outfits, to inquire about a bridal jumpsuit she had seen advertised on one or more of D. Auxilly's social media pages. Specifically, complainant requested information about payment options for the jumpsuit. Complainant also informed D. Auxilly that as her fiancé had "fallen in love" with it after struggling to find anything she liked, complainant wanted to purchase it for their upcoming wedding.

Dominique Galbraith, D. Auxilly's owner and operator, responded on behalf of D. Auxilly advising complainant of the payment requirements of the business but that she would not be able to make the garment for a same-sex wedding because it would go against her religious beliefs. She also urged complainant and her fiancé to reconsider getting married….

The First Amendment does not shield D. Auxilly from liability for this discrimination. Unlike the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm (2018), D. Auxilly was not asked to design and create customized items which might constitute an "expressive statement." Nor was it tasked with creating a customized wedding website, as in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023). Instead, D. Auxilly refused to sell the wedding garment it had previously designed and which it had marketed to the public. While the garment likely would need to be adjusted for sizing, this potential sizing alteration would not constitute an expressive statement. Neither would D. Auxilly's "speech" be compelled here by requiring it to sell the previously designed and marketed garment.

Enforcement of the [law] here also does not violate D. Auxilly's right to free exercise of religion. The statute is "neutral, both on its face and due to a lack of evidence that it targets religious conduct for a distinctive treatment."

{[T]he Division had jurisdiction in the instant matter because the discriminatory conduct occurred in New York and its impact was felt in the state. Complainant reached out to D. Auxilly, a business which markets its clothes as "made in New York," seeking to purchase goods from this New York business. D. Auxilly's discriminatory conduct based upon complainant's sexual orientation deprived complainant of an opportunity to engage in commercial activity here. Indeed, by affirmatively labeling its products as being "made in New York" but then refusing to sell those same "New York" products to people of a certain sexual orientation, D. Auxilly implicitly associated the City and State of New York with a discriminatory act, and the impact test is satisfied. Additionally, the fact that complainant communicated with D. Auxilly online through social media rather than traveling to a New York storefront does not deprive petitioner of jurisdiction over this matter.}

Finally, we find the awards of compensatory damages [$5,000] and civil penalties proper. The award to complainant is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by evidence before the Division, and in line with other awards for similar injuries. Likewise, the civil penalty of $20,000 is neither disproportionate to the offense nor does it shock the conscience.

My thoughts:

Bridal jumpsuit! New one on me. A quick Google Images search further enlightened me.
Pedantically speaking, wouldn't it be "her fianceé" rather than "her fiancé"?
Oh, wait, there's a legal issue here. Well, I think that there's a First Amendment right not to be compelled to create speech, such as photos, videos, and web sites, and I've argued this since 2012. But I don't think there's such a right as to fundamentally nonspeech products, even ones that people use as conventional parts of ceremonies, such as cakes or jumpsuits (as I've argued since 2017). The precise line, of course, can at times be fuzzy, e.g., as to cakes or jumpsuits that have specific expressive decorations (e.g., words, possibly rainbow designs, etc.), but it's still a sensible line; for more on that, see this amicus brief that Dale Carpenter and I put together in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
For more on the designer, see here and here; for more on the case, see here.

Melissa Franco and Michael K. Swirsky (New York State Division of Human Rights) represent the state.

The post No First Amendment Right Not to Sell Bridal Outfit for Same-Sex Wedding appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Defending Its AR-15 Ban, Cook County Urges SCOTUS To Ignore the Rifle's Popularity

2026-10-22T21:17:16Z

On December 2, the Supreme Court will consider constitutional challenges to "assault weapon" bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, that cover widely owned rifles, including the AR-15. As the plaintiffs in those consolidated cases see it, such laws plainly violate the Second Amendment because they prohibit arms in common use for lawful purposes. In briefs filed on Wednesday, Connecticut and Cook County urge the justices to reject that test, saying a weapon's popularity is not dispositive. The relevant question, they say, is whether their rifle restrictions fit a historical tradition of banning "unusually dangerous weapons."

Cook County and Connecticut have the burden of showing that their laws are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," the test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. On the face of it, that is a daunting challenge.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to own "bearable arms" that are "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense." That description indisputably encompasses "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles," the firearms at issue in these cases. But Heller also recognized "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" Cook County and Connecticut argue that the rifles they have deemed intolerable fall into that category.

"There is a robust historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons that
compromise public safety," Cook County says. "Such regulations, which long
predate the founding, have included outright bans and other restrictions on exceptionally dangerous weapons like launcegays, trap guns, Bowie knives, and slung shots."

Cook County argues that its ordinance is "relevantly similar" to those historical restrictions because it targets "exceptionally lethal weapons that are disproportionate to the end of self-defense." AR-15s are "offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality and are not customarily used for self-defense," the brief says. "The purpose and operation of the ban is consistent with our Nation's historical tradition and accounts for the exceptional dangerousness of these technologically advanced weapons."

The ban is "an appropriate contemporary restriction implemented by the legislature in response to dramatic technological change and unprecedented societal concern," the brief says. "It is tailored to respond to the particular dangers presented in areas with mass casualty exposure and acute public safety risk."

Connecticut offers a similar argument. One problem with this defense is the premise that "assault weapon" bans focus on "exceptionally lethal weapons." As critics of such laws have been pointing out for decades, the features they target, such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds, do not affect a rifle's basic operation. With or without them, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. And because AR-15s use intermediate-caliber ammunition, they are arguably less lethal than shotguns and many hunting rifles that are not classified as "assault weapons."

Cook County's emphasis on technological developments is also questionable. Constitutional guarantees establish principles that courts routinely apply to technologies that did not exist at the founding. Although the Framers did not have radio, television, or the internet, for example, the First Amendment nevertheless constrains government regulation of those media.

More specifically, Heller rejected the idea that modern weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment by recognizing a constitutional right to own semiautomatic pistols. The Supreme Court said "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." The Court confirmed that point in the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, which involved a state ban on stun guns.

Cook County also asserts that AR-15s are not suitable for self-defense, a claim that would be hotly contested by many owners of such rifles, who commonly report using them for that purpose. "Plaintiffs have shown that AR-15s are well-adapted for self-defense," U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan wrote in 2024, when he reluctantly concluded that New Jersey's AR-15 ban was inconsistent with Heller while expressing his dismay at that result. "Evidence has been presented to the Court that the build of the AR-15 makes it well-suited to self-defense because it is 'light weight, [has] very mild recoil, and [has] good ergonomics'; it is a weapon which is 'well suited to younger shooters, female shooters, and other shooters of smaller stature.'"

Sheridan added that "the AR-15's design features—including the effectiveness of its cartridge for self-defense use and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines—make the AR-15 a good choice for self-defense." And he noted that "the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma."

Cook County and Connecticut are also wrong in suggesting that self-defense is the only "lawful purpose" that matters. While Heller emphasized the use of handguns "in defense of hearth and home," it did not say that was the full extent of the Second Amendment right. To the contrary, the phrase "lawful purposes like self-defense" implies that the right extends to other uses, such as hunting, pest control, and target shooting. The decision explicitly mentioned hunting as a "reason Americans valued the ancient right."

The briefs are misleading in another way that may prove decisive. They conflate "dangerous and unusual" with "unusually dangerous," which is not the same thing.

During the 19th century, state legislators restricted (and sometimes banned) weapons such as Bowie knives, spears, sword canes, slungshots, and brass knuckles. But the historical evidence suggests those weapons were not targeted simply because they were "unusually dangerous." Legislators were also concerned about how the weapons were typically used.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who filed a brief supporting the challenges to the AR-15 bans, notes that the 19th-century laws targeted weapons associated with "duels, brawls, and other criminal activities." And in reviewing those laws, state courts distinguished between arms favored by criminals and arms commonly used for lawful purposes.

In 1871, for example, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that legislators could ban weapons that were "not usual" but could not ban "the usual arms of the citizen." The top courts of Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan concurred that the right to arms encompassed weapons commonly owned by law-abiding people, including rifles.

AR-15s and similar rifles readily pass that common-use test. In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry's trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million "modern sporting rifles," its preferred term for the models covered by "assault weapon" bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. Last year, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as "the most popular rifle in the country."

According to Cook County and Connecticut, however, none of that matters. "Once it is established that a regulation pursues a legitimate public safety objective in a permissible manner, raw ownership numbers cannot immunize a firearm from regulation," Cook County says. It argues that opponents of its ordinance have misconstrued the significance of the common-use test and misunderstood how it interacts with Bruen.

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," the Supreme Court said in Bruen. "To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"

The common-use question, Cook County argues, figures only in the first Bruen step: "the inquiry whether the weapon at issue is one 'the Second Amendment protects.'" But even if ownership of AR-15s is covered by "the Second Amendment's plain text," it says, that does not resolve the question of whether they can be banned, which depends on the historical analysis required by the second step of the Bruen test.

"This Court's decision in Bruen confirms that the Second Amendment's step-two inquiry does not insulate popularly owned firearms from regulation," the brief says. In
Bruen, it was "undisputed" that "handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," including "outside the home." But "instead of being the end of this Court's inquiry, that observation was just the beginning." The decision also included an "extended analysis" of the historical laws that New York cited to justify its "proper cause" requirement for carry permits. "If lawful common use alone were enough to forbid regulation," Cook County argues, "there would have been no need to engage in that careful and prolonged analysis."

The question in Bruen was not whether the Second Amendment precludes "regulation." It was whether New York's specific approach, which required residents to demonstrate a "special need" before they were allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, was consistent with the historical tradition. That is why the Court considered (and rejected) the purported historical analogs that New York offered.

Cook County conflates requirements for carry permits, the issue in Bruen, with an outright ban on ownership, the policy it is defending. Connecticut likewise blurs the distinction between carry restrictions and complete prohibition.

"The Bowie knife was 'widely carried by Americans of all stripes,' including 'upstanding citizens and villains' alike," Connecticut's brief says. "The widespread use of Bowie knives and other weapons for lawful purposes did not prevent dozens of States from restricting those weapons." But those laws generally restricted or banned public carry. They rarely made it illegal to acquire or possess a Bowie knife, which is the approach that Connecticut and Cook County have taken with AR-15s.

That policy is hard to reconcile with Heller. I will quote Sheridan again, since his comments made it clear that he would have preferred to uphold New Jersey's AR-15 ban. Under Heller, he said, "a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful." Given "the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point," he concluded, New Jersey's law "is unconstitutional" as applied to "the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home."

Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed and went further, extending that conclusion to "the full class of semi-automatic rifles" banned in New Jersey. "Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation," Judge Arianna Freeman, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. "That principle resolves our inquiry here."

To beat back the challenges to their laws, Connecticut and Cook County will have to persuade the justices that the 3rd Circuit's understanding of Heller and Bruen is wrong, meaning they are free to ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes. That seems like a tall order, and Cook County's position is especially puzzling. According to its brief, the fact that a weapon is covered by the Second Amendment does not mean Americans have a right to possess it. The more you think about that claim, the less sense it makes.

The post Defending Its AR-15 Ban, Cook County Urges SCOTUS To Ignore the Rifle's Popularity appeared first on Reason Magazine.

NY Health Commissioner Says "Mother Nature" Is Punishing Amish Children With Measles Outbreak

2026-10-22T21:06:22Z

Way back in May 2024, I wrote about Miller v. McDonald. Amish parents challenged New York's vaccine mandate on Free Exercise Clause grounds. In December 2025, the Supreme Court GVR'd the case in light of Mahmoud. Unsurprisingly, the New York courts thought Mahmoud changed nothing. The case is now back before the Supreme Court. A cert petition was filed on September 28.

The New York Times covered the case in an article titled, "Amish Families Pushed to Undo a Vaccine Law. Then Measles Arrived." The undercurrent of the article is that Amish children deserve to become sick because their parents did not vaccinate them. The New York Health commissioner made this point expressly:

In a petition filed on Sept. 28, the Amish asked the U.S. Supreme Court to force New York to grant religious exemptions to immunization rules, as most states do. A previous ruling gave the Amish reason to think they might have a chance at prevailing.

But then a wave of measles cases began sweeping through Amish communities. Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a statewide health emergency this month after more than 100 people fell ill with measles.

"Perhaps Mother Nature, by delivering a measles outbreak in New York's Amish community coincident with this case returning to the Supreme Court, is her not-so-subtle hint," said Dr. Howard Zucker, who was state health commissioner when New York eliminated religious exemptions.

If only the Amish people chose the state over their religion, and took the hint, they wouldn't have so many sick children! I am appalled by Zucker's arrogance and hostility to religion. He is stating that "Mother Nature" is sending a signal to the Amish that adhering to their religion is making children sick. In effect, nature is punishing the Amish for not submitting to Kathy Hochul.

Chief Justice Burger described this unique community in the Supreme Court's unanimous Wisconsin v. Yoder decision:

The history of the Amish sect was given in some detail, beginning with the Swiss Anabaptists of the 16th century, who rejected institutionalized churches and sought to return to the early, simple, Christian life deemphasizing material success, rejecting the competitive spirit, and seeking to insulate themselves from the modern world. As a result of their common heritage, Old Order Amish communities today are characterized by a fundamental belief that salvation requires life in a church community separate and apart from the world and worldly influence. This concept of life aloof from the world and its values is central to their faith.

A related feature of Old Order Amish communities is their devotion to a life in harmony with nature and the soil, as exemplified by the simple life of the early Christian era that continued in America during much of our early national life. Amish beliefs require members of the community to make their living by farming or closely related activities. Broadly speaking, the Old Order Amish religion pervades and determines the entire mode of life of its adherents. Their conduct is regulated in great detail by the Ordnung, or rules, of the church community.

It is especially awful for Zucker to weaponize "Mother Nature" (capital letters) against a people whose life is devoted to "harmony with nature."

This is not the first time New York has accused insular religious communities of spreading diseases. In October 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo shared a photograph of religious Jews congregating in close quarters as evidence they were spreading the disease. He said, "I'm going to say to the orthodox community tomorrow if you don't agree then we will have to close down your religious institutions." The only problem was that the photograph was from the 2006 funeral of Hassidic rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum. And the photo wasn't even from New York City. It was taken in the Orange County village of Kiryas Joel. This charge really isn't new. Jews were blamed for the spreading of the Bubonic Plague, among other pandemics.

The Times gestures at the religious reasons why the Amish oppose the vaccines:

But many Amish families regard vaccine mandates — and government intrusion in their schools — as a greater threat to the health of their community than measles. Their religion calls for adherents to live together in tightknit religious communities apart from the modern world and its influences.

"Our almighty God wants us to fully put our faith and trust in him, which is in conflict to put our trust in vaccines," Ezra Wengerd, an Amish leader who represents the 26 families that send their children to the three schools, told a judge in 2022.

The Amish have been practicing their faith for more than three centuries and have principled reasons to oppose vaccines. Indeed, the Amish have a far stronger case to object to vaccines than many people who made up their beliefs during the pandemic. Shame on the New York government for singling out this tradition in such hostile terms.

Zucker and others do not seem to know or care what it means to place faith in a higher power. Instead, Zucker thinks Mother Nature is seeking retribution against the Amish children.

Yet, perhaps we should be grateful. This sort of statement should feature prominently in future briefing. Indeed, Zucker demonstrates the sort of hostility we've seen in past victories for religious liberty. In the leadup to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a government official said that "things have changed since 100 yearsago," and "it would be great if we followed the teachings of Pope Francis, the voice of the Catholic Church." And in Masterpiece Cakeshop, a commissioner said "Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust." These statements are prima facie evidence of religious hostility.

So thank you Mr. Zucker. You've made the odds of your state losing far greater.

People sometimes ask me whether I would ever want to live in New York again. The answer is 1000% no. This state consistently exhibits so much hostility towards people of faith. Here in Texas, some people object to posting the Ten Commandments on the wall of classrooms as some evidence of hatred. But no piece of paper can compare to the overt disdain towards traditional religions that people like Zucker and Cuomo demonstrate. So long as religious people get vaccinated and attend services on Zoom, they are in good standing with the government. But as soon as any person of faith deigns to disagree with elite opinions, then Gaia will seek vengeance.

These people are living in an episode of Captain Planet. (I cringe that as a child I absorbed this Turnerfied propaganda.)

The post NY Health Commissioner Says "Mother Nature" Is Punishing Amish Children With Measles Outbreak appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Peter Pan Tariffs for Companies That Never Grow Up

2026-10-22T20:57:09Z

Of all the arguments for protectionism, the infant industry argument probably has the strongest theoretical appeal. By protecting a new industry from its more developed foreign competition, the story goes, tariffs give domestic producers the time to grow, learn, and become efficient enough to stand on their own. Domestic consumers feel the short-term pains of higher prices, but they enjoy the long-term gains of job growth and lower prices as the new industry blossoms.

It's no secret that tariffs have driven significant price increases over the last year and a half. A study from the New York Federal Reserve finds that tariffs "contributed 2.9 percentage points to goods price inflation" and that without tariffs those prices would have slightly declined. Tariff defenders, looking for a new reason to claim these higher prices are only temporary, have reimagined the infant industry argument. Now it's being used to support trade barriers in industries that are over a century old, but the promise is exactly the same: Domestic firms need the protection so they can compete, innovate, and cut costs until prices come back down even further than they were before the tariffs.

Michael Brendan Dougherty recently made such an argument in National Review, arguing that "tariffs can, over time, bring prices below where they started." When economist Don Boudreaux called the argument "bizarre," Dougherty replied that critics had failed to acknowledge the dynamic process by which markets respond to tariffs "by adapting and cutting costs." Although he is light on specific details, he posits that the changed incentives of a "paradigm shift" in tariff policy will spur domestic competition, leading to the theorized price reduction. Of course, firms would still respond to the dynamic processes of domestic competition without a tariff wall, but the point stands.

From there, the reworked infant industry argument becomes the standard version advanced more than two centuries ago by Alexander Hamilton and his disciple Friedrich List. When Hamilton made this claim in 1791, his argument may have seemed suitable for a new nation seeking to firm up its economy and security against established European powers.

Others at the time pointed out that special interest groups—a manifestation of the "violence of faction" so thoroughly dissected in the Federalist Papers—had already begun to coalesce around the fledgling iron industry in Pennsylvania, clamoring for protective tariffs. Two years earlier, James Madison had warned about a "premature policy of stimulating manufactures" driving tariffs too high. In the end, Hamilton recommended and Congress enacted a far more moderate tariff schedule than his theoretical musings portended. American iron manufacturers received a consolation prize of a higher tariff on their competitors than the rate for most general imports. Hamiltonians have been touting the infant industry argument ever since.

Nearly 250 years later, those same infants apparently have yet to advance into adulthood. Steel, the direct successor to the founding-era iron manufacturers, remains a singular focus of President Donald Trump's protectionist tariff policies, just as it was under former President Joe Biden. And former President George W. Bush before him. Indeed, steel has been a recurring beneficiary of protectionism for most of America's existence.

This extended period of protectionist infancy suggests that the argument needs a new name. We propose the "Peter Pan industry argument" for companies that never grow up because tariffs make sure they never have to.

The question tariff advocates rarely ask is: Why do some American producers have higher costs than foreign rivals even in the face of lower-cost foreign competition? The answer comes down to specific rules and choices within particular firms and industries. Tariffs, and protectionism in general, address none of these. No industry illustrates this like steel, but it is far from the only one.

In 1947, United Steelworkers won a contract provision known as Section 2-B. Among other things, this barred mill managers from changing established work practices unless new technology required it. Steel companies tried to get rid of this in 1959, finding it difficult (given union incentives) to establish that technology required change. In response, 500,000 steelworkers went on strike for 116 days. This strike sent buyers abroad, causing 1959 to be the first year the U.S. imported more steel than it exported. One of the then-new technologies that was delayed was basic oxygen furnaces, which could produce steel far faster and cheaper than the open-hearth furnaces that were so common. In 1965, only about 17 percent of steel made in the U.S. was made using the basic oxygen furnace. Japan produced 55 percent of its steel with this faster, more efficient method.

Change finally came from a steel customer. Vulcraft, a maker of steel joists, grew tired of paying Big Steel's prices and waiting for Big Steel's deliveries. In 1969, free from steel unions and preconceived notions, the company looked for new steel-producing technologies and found the answer in the electric arc furnaces that had been adopted in much of the world throughout the 1950s and '60s. Vulcraft's parent company later renamed itself Nucor, and minimills like the ones it pioneered now make most of America's steel.

So the modern steel industry was built by a frustrated steel buyer who found a way around protected companies. In other words, the U.S. steel industry has lagged behind the technologies found around the world.

We could go on, but the broad point here is that the "relatively higher domestic production costs that made the tariff 'necessary' in the first place," as one critic put it, are often the result of preventing competition in the first place. It's odd to suggest that further preventing competition through tariffs will somehow alleviate the ills of already-prevented competition.

Tariff advocates fail to acknowledge that the ability to import steel also comes with the benefit of access to cheaper steel for steel-using industries, such as manufacturing. A 50 percent tariff on steel further closes the release valve that imported steel offers. Buyers of steel are then left to purchase more of the more expensive domestic steel. Because new steel mills take years to bring online, this causes delays and longer delivery times for manufacturers.

We don't have to wonder what happens when a country lowers its tariffs on materials used by manufacturers. India did this in the '90s, and researchers found that newly available inputs accounted for 31 percent of the new products that Indian manufacturers introduced. And what happens when the U.S. imposes tariffs on steel? Downstream U.S. firms become less competitive. This is why American businesses clamor for exemptions to tariffs, especially for tariffs on materials like steel.

Perhaps all this could be forgiven if tariffs advanced national security concerns, as tariff advocates assert. They point out that an adversarial nation could cut off supplies of critical materials during wartime and cripple America's ability to defend itself. Unfortunately, tariffs fail there too.

First, this conflates production with access. While domestic production does ensure domestic access, access can be secured without production. In the case of steel, the Commerce Department reports that in 2025, the U.S. imported steel from 79 countries, with Canada being our top foreign supplier. The top 10 sources of steel are responsible for 77.8 percent of America's steel imports. None of those countries were considered adversaries—at least not until the tariff crusades pushed these friends away. What's more, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, only 23 percent of finished steel in the U.S. was imported in 2024. Far from being exposed to foreign states' whims, American access to steel is incredibly resilient.

Second, this view ignores the positive effects of trade and globalization on national security. The Center for Strategic & International Studies finds that increased trade between countries reduces the likelihood that they'll go to war against one another. Globalization helps ensure that domestic access continues unabated should war break out, thanks to the diversity of trading partners.

When Hamilton made the infant industry argument, he at least assured us that the industry would at some point advance to adulthood and stand on its own. Steel, like so many other Peter Pan industries, has proven Madison right. These industries have refused to grow up, and it's time to stop pretending that tariffs will fix that.

The post Peter Pan Tariffs for Companies That Never Grow Up appeared first on Reason Magazine.

I Predict the GOP Will Lose Its Senate Majority (and Magically Regain It)

2026-10-22T20:00:42Z

In my role as a political commentator, I enjoy making predictions. I possess no special talent for this and am often hilariously wrong: Unlike most other pundits, I famously clung to my stupid belief that former President Joe Biden would never step down as the Democrats' 2024 candidate, for instance. I called the 2020 presidential election correctly (and got most states right, only flipping Georgia and Florida), but I messed up in 2024. (Nevertheless, I still demolished my co-host, who didn't appear to take this challenge very seriously.)

The hardest part about making predictions is separating what you want to happen from what is actually likely to happen. Commentators often feel inclined to rally for their preferred outcome, as if shouting about it on television is going to make it come true. In some ways, this is an easier temptation for us libertarians to avoid, since all outcomes generally seem suboptimal. Once again, that is the case: See, for example, the upcoming 2026 midterms.

It seems inarguable that President Donald Trump has squandered much of his political capital by failing to focus narrowly on the economy and instead launching another unpopular war in the Middle East. It also seems obvious that the Democratic Party, once returned in power, will do everything it can to thwart the administration's shrewdest policies—on tech and AI in particular.

But that is my prediction: Democrats will retake the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I don't have any specific map in mind for the House (it's too complicated), but here are my Senate predictions:

Here is my REVISED prediction for the Senate. For the last several weeks, everything has moved in Dems' direction, and I now expect them to take it.

I still say Collins holds on. Michigan and Ohio seem lost for GOP, though. And I'm not super confident in the Iowa call. https://t.co/oph3Swtgzw pic.twitter.com/FtsrGxmukJ

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) October 20, 2026

When I looked at the map back in August, I still thought Ohio was a long shot for the Democrats and that Michigan was in play for the GOP due to Abdul El-Sayed being so far left. Now it looks to me like Republicans will lose both seats, along with Texas and Alaska. I'm still betting that the formidable incumbent in Maine, Sen. Susan Collins (R), will hold on—the polls have misjudged her in the past—and that Iowa is a bridge too far for Dems. If Republicans manage to keep those two seats, then it's a 51–49 map in Democrats' favor.

But wait…all is not lost for Trump.

In the event of a 51–49 Dem advantage, it seems somewhat likely to me that Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.) could switch parties, which would restore Republican control because of Vice President J.D. Vance's tiebreaking vote. With his conservative rhetoric on Israel and other issues, Fetterman has no future as an elected Democrat in his state—he could never ever ever win a Democratic primary—and will have to strike some sort deal with Trump before his reelection in 2028. Fetterman should agree to become an independent who caucuses with Republicans in exchange for Trump ensuring that no Republican dares run against him in the future. Absent such a deal, Fetterman is virtually guaranteed to be a one-term senator, so if he harbors any desire to keep his job—perhaps that's an open question—he will need to make a move. A 51–49 Senate will give him the exact leverage he needs.

So those are my predictions! What are yours?

This Week on Free Media

I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss the riots in France, Vivek Ramaswamy's terrible campaign ad, and more.

Worth Watching

Here's another shameless plug for my upcoming debate with Katherine Mangu-Ward, Mehdi Hasan, and Jason Stanley! (Katherine is on my side.) If you are in Washington, D.C., please get tickets here.

The post I Predict the GOP Will Lose Its Senate Majority (and Magically Regain It) appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Border Cops Seize Nurse's Phone Filled With Psychiatric Patient Information

2026-10-22T19:48:34Z

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized a psychiatric nurse practitioner's phone filled with confidential patient information at Washington Dulles International Airport last week, according to a new lawsuit. Muhammad Numaan Imam alleges that CBP agents told him that they could take his electronics the "easy way or the hard way" and refused to let him talk to his lawyer because "we are the authorities at the border."

The lawsuit by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) may be the first time CBP is taken to court over seizing people's medical records. ADC is also helping Palestinian-American lawyer Jay Shehadeh and Jewish-American journalist Max Blumenthal sue over their devices being seized.

"We're seeing a pattern where officers use their border-search authority not to advance any legitimate border-related purpose, but to punish individuals for refusing to provide access to their personal electronic devices and for having expressed views the government didn't approve of," ADC president and legal director Jenin Younes wrote in a statement emailed to journalists.

While Shehadeh and Blumenthal claim that CBP is retaliating for their political views, Imam argues that he faced threats and retaliation with the simple act of asserting privacy rights. Both Imam and Shehadeh were considered "trusted travelers" under the Global Entry program, which allows American citizens who undergo a background check to pass through an automated fast track at airports and borders.

Asked by Reason, a CBP spokesperson did not address any specifics of the case, giving only a generic statement about how "CBP's ability to lawfully inspect electronic devices crossing the border is integral to keeping America safe in an increasingly digital world."

The border exemption to the Fourth Amendment gives U.S. authorities the power to look for "contraband" crossing into the country without a warrant. There is a mess of contradictory court rulings on whether that power includes searching travelers' electronic data, but in practice, CBP can simply seize the physical devices that the data live on.

And the agency often lies outright to travelers whose data that it wants to search, as documents recently released in the case of Atlanta protester Samuel Tunick show. CBP agents gave Tunick a false reason for detaining him and falsely promised that he would be allowed to leave with his phone if he cooperated, even though they were under orders to seize his devices no matter what. Tunick is now on trial for allegedly tricking the CBP agents into deleting his data to avoid a search.

"It's happening to a lot of people, and it's being used in this coercive, inappropriate way," Younes tells Reason.

The problems for Imam, who lives in Virginia, actually began at another border. He was heading to Istanbul on Saturday for a family vacation with his Pakistani wife, Khadijah Mansoor, and their 1-year-old child. Turkish authorities demanded to see Mansoor's U.S. green card, which she had forgotten at home, and wouldn't let her enter on her Pakistani passport alone. The family had to board the next flight back to Washington. On their arrival, CBP naturally wanted to know why they had been turned away and why Mansoor didn't have her green card.

But things took a weirder turn after agents told Imam he had been "flagged" for undisclosed reasons, pulled him into a separate room, and began questioning him about his social media use and group chats, according to the lawsuit. (Imam tells Reason that they asked about group chats in general, not any specific group chat.) When agents asked for the password to Imam's phone, he told them that he uses the phone to communicate with and manage cases for patients at the rehab facility where he works. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) strictly prevents doctors and other medical staff from sharing patient data without consent, so Imam asked to speak to a lawyer.

"Your lawyer cannot do anything. We are the authorities at the border," Imam recalls one agent saying. A supervisor then told the couple that CBP could take all of their electronics the "easy way or the hard way," and that the devices could take months to get back, Imam and Mansoor claim.

CBP's own internal policy says that devices should "ordinarily" be held for less than five days. The same policy includes vague guidelines for dealing with medical information: "Possibly sensitive information, such as medical records and work-related information carried by journalists, shall be handled in accordance with any applicable federal law and CBP policy." Imam says that the CBP agents claimed to have software for filtering out HIPAA-protected data.

After four hours in detention, CBP took the family's phones and laptops and let them go. The next day, Imam got an email stating, "We regret to inform you that your membership in Global Entry has been revoked for the following reason(s): You do not meet the Trusted Traveler standard." In addition to both Imam and Mansoor losing valuable work data, the lawsuit argues, Imam is now unable to prescribe certain psychiatric medications to his patients, because of federal regulations that require phone verification.

The lawsuit demands the return of the devices and data under Rule 41(g) of federal criminal procedures, which requires the government to hand back property that is no longer necessary for a criminal investigation. ADC has also filed these motions in Shehadeh and Blumenthal's cases. (CBP gave back Blumenthal and Shehadeh's phones almost immediately afterward, but ADC is continuing to press for records of what they did to those phones in custody.) Younes filed a brief on Blumenthal's behalf in support of an upcoming Supreme Court case over whether CBP can continue these electronic searches.

"The devices are neither contraband nor subject to forfeiture, and, to Plaintiffs' knowledge, there is no pending criminal investigation, criminal prosecution, or warrant authorizing their continued seizure or search," Imam's lawsuit states. "The Fourth Amendment does not permit the border-search exception to become a means of coercing compliance through the threatened or actual confiscation of travelers' personal property."

The post Border Cops Seize Nurse's Phone Filled With Psychiatric Patient Information appeared first on Reason Magazine.

France Is a Warning to California's Tax-the-Rich Crowd

2026-10-22T19:30:58Z

French economist Gabriel Zucman has come to California bearing a familiar French solution to a fiscal problem: another tax.

Once based at the University of California, Berkeley, Zucman is back and campaigning for Proposition 40, which would impose an allegedly one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of Californians worth more than $1 billion. Zucman, who coauthored the proposition, estimates that the tax could raise about $100 billion and claims that 90 percent of the proceeds would go to health care.

The California Legislative Analyst's office is far more cautious, saying it would raise only "tens of billions" and could cause a long-term loss of income-tax revenue as wealthy people leave the state with the companies they created.

I've written plenty about why wealth taxes are economically destructive, administratively nightmarish, and unlikely to achieve anything close to what their advocates promise. But Zucman's prescription is wrong for a more fundamental reason, as his (and my) native country shows: Raising taxes to fuel ever-larger demands for government spending is a recipe for disaster.

Unless you've been living in a remote cave recently, you've likely seen all the protests and destruction in France. But do you know why it's happening?

As another economist, Paul Krugman, rightly noted back in 2017, "France offers a social safety net beyond the wildest dreams of U.S. progressives: guaranteed high-quality health care for all, generous paid leave for new parents, universal pre-K, and much more."

For decades, France has answered any perceived desire with government spending, then responded to the resulting fiscal problem by seeking new revenue sources. Today, French government spending consumes roughly 58 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Krugman gloated that France wasn't suffering social collapse and speculated that it was due to all the spending. He certainly can't say that anymore. In fact, he is now worried that France may be on the precipice of a debt crisis. The truth is that France hasn't done well for some time, even when Krugman cheered its spending.

One of the groups in the street today, young people, has faced widespread unemployment for a long time. The youth unemployment rate in France (ages 15-24) has hovered between 17 percent and 27 percent since 2000. In the second quarter of 2026, it was 21.6 percent, against 14.8 percent in the Eurozone and 9.9 percent in the U.S.

French people also pay some of the highest taxes in the developed world, and they're not happy with the return. The government already takes more than 52 percent of the country's output in revenue, runs deficits exceeding 5 percent of GDP, and has accumulated debt approaching 120 percent of GDP. Nonetheless, French students complain that the government is shortchanging schools, while everyone sees that it is shortchanging its army and police.

The students aren't wrong to feel left out. At The Two Cents Substack, Hoover Institution scholar Hanno Lustig calculates that, between 1995 and 2024, spending on social protection and health (most of which benefits older people) rose from 53.1 percent to 58.7 percent of all French government spending. The share devoted to education, defense, and public order fell from 15.2 percent to 13.7 percent. Transportation fell from 5.3 percent to 3.8 percent.

In other words, France has built an enormous welfare state, much of it devoted to older citizens, while letting other state capacities and basic services fall apart. As transfers of wealth swallow a larger share of the budget, everything else gets squeezed.

That is the fiscal ratchet Californians should worry about when Zucman tells them Proposition 40 is necessary to "save" health care. Proponents claim Washington "cut" Medicaid, but that language is misleading. California's deficit started long before any Washington spending reductions. Besides, federal Medicaid spending isn't falling—not even close. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will reach $708 billion in 2026, 8 percent more than in 2025. What Washington did in the 2025 budget reconciliation law was reduce Medicaid's future growth relative to previous projections, partly by changing eligibility and enrollment rules and financing arrangements.

This is how the ratchet works. Once the government projects a spending increase, anything less becomes a cut. And once Washington fails to finance the entire projected increase, Californians are told that Sacramento must backfill the missing money. And how should it do that? Conveniently, by creating an entirely new tax.

France has run this experiment for decades. It has an incredibly generous welfare state paid for with very high taxes; it's even tried a wealth tax and has a value-added tax, yet somehow it's never enough. Its welfare state has not eliminated scarcity. It has merely transferred the job of rationing scarce resources to politicians.

Zucman looks at California and sees hundreds of billions of dollars of private wealth waiting to solve a public finance problem. Californians should look across the Atlantic and ask a different question: What happens after politicians decide that every spending adjustment can be delayed until tomorrow by finding another pot of private wealth?

France should not be sending California tax advice. It should be sending a warning.

The post France Is a Warning to California's Tax-the-Rich Crowd appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Ancient and Honorable Art of AI Hallucination

2026-10-22T19:05:43Z

I'm delighted to be able to pass along this item from University of Chicago law professor Albert Alschuler:

Gemini Explains to a User (Me) Why Its Programming Produces Poppycock

I didn't mean to summon AI from the vasty deep. Professor Bradley A. Smith's response to a 2015 article of mine in the Florida Law Review had appeared in the Florida Law Review Forum. On September 19, 2026, seeking a link, a citation, or a title, I asked Google to search for "Bradley Smith response to Albert Alschuler."

Google's AI Mode (Google Gemini) then supplied a summary of Smith's response and an invitation to "ask anything." I accepted its invitation.

ME: Did Alschuler reply to Smith?

GEMINI: Yes, Albert Alschuler replied to Bradley A. Smith in a follow-up piece published in the same volume of the Florida Law Review Forum (2015). [Note: I hadn't replied. Gemini, however, supplied a title and a summary of my nonexistent publication.]

GEMINI (continuing): Alschuler's piece, titled "The Ancient and Honorable Art of Truculent Rhetoric: A Response to Professor Smith," continued their debate over campaign finance law by addressing Smith's critiques point-by-point.

Key Points of Alschuler's Reply:

Deconstructing "Truculent Rhetoric": Alschuler lightheartedly but firmly addresses the aggressive nature of Smith's libertarian style, defense of Citizen's United, and absolute deregulation approach.

Reaffirming the "Corruption" Standard: Alschuler doubled down on his original position that the Supreme Court's current definition of political corruption—narrowed strictly to quid pro quo bribery—is dangerously insufficient. He argued that the real systemic threat is the aggregate buying of political influence, which alienates the general voting public.

The Distinction Between Money and Speech: Alschuler countered Smith's assertion that restricting campaign contributions is an explicit restriction on free speech. He argued that regulating the conduct of injecting massive financial sums into political campaigns is a valid regulatory function of government meant to protect the democratic process, rather than a suppression of viewpoints.

Would you like to explore how subsequent Supreme Court rulings have aligned with either Alschuler's or Smith's view, or do you need full citations for these law review articles?

ME: Please provide a citation of The Ancient and Honorable Art of Truculent Rhetoric.

GEMINI: Here is the full legal citation for the article in Bluebook format, along with a standard APA citation:

Bluebook (Legal Citation)

Albert W. Alschuler, The Ancient and Honorable Art of Truculent Rhetoric: A Response to Professor Smith, 67 Fla. L. Rev. F. 68 (2015).

APA Format

Alschuler, A. W. (2015). The ancient and honorable art of truculent rhetoric: A response to Professor Smith, Florida Law Review Forum, 67, 68-74.

. . . .

ME: Your response seems to be a complete hallucination. I can't find The Ancient and Honorable Art of Truculent Rhetoric.

GEMINI: You are completely right, and I apologize. I hallucinated that entire reply piece and its title.

While the actual article by Bradley A. Smith, "Why Buckley?: Why a First Amendment? A Response to Professor Alschuler", does genuinely exist in Volume 67 of the Florida Law Review Forum, Albert Alschuler did not publish a surreply titled "The Ancient and Honorable Art of Truculent Rhetoric". I fabricated that title and those specific page numbers out of nowhere.

. . . .

Thank you for catching that and holding me accountable. [Note: Ah, my Perry Mason moment!]

ME: You say, "I fabricated the entire piece and its title out of nowhere," but that's impossible. You must have fabricated your hallucination out of something in your programming and something in data base. Can you explain how it happened or how it might have happened?

GEMINI: You are entirely correct to push back on that phrasing. When I said I made it up "out of nowhere," I was using a human figure of speech. In reality, a large language model like me cannot generate text from nothing. Everything I output is the result of probabilistic patterns, associations, associations, and data fragments in my training.

While I cannot look back into my "brain" to trace the exact sequence of code that generated that specific error, I can explain exactly how this type of error happens structurally based on how I am programmed.

Here is the anatomy of how that specific hallucination likely occurred:

The Pattern of "Law Review Dialogue"

Law reviews almost always follow a highly predictable pattern:

Original Article → Response → Surreply (Reply to the Response)

Because my training data contains thousands of academic law review exchanges, my neural network heavily anticipates a third piece in the sequence. When you asked, "Did Alschuler reply to Smith?" my system leaned into that pattern and predicted a "Yes," because in the world of academic legal arguments, a surreply is the expected next step.

Synthesizing the Title from Contextual Cues

Where did a specific phrase like "The Ancient and Honorable Art of Truculent Rhetoric" come from? It wasn't a random string of words. It was synthesized from the exact context of the prompt.

"Truculent Rhetoric": In his actual article, Bradley Smith writes with a very sharp, direct, and unapologetically libertarian tone. He forcefully dismantles opposing arguments. The word "truculent" means aggressively self-assertive or fierce. My system blended the vibe of Bradley Smith's actual writing style with the concept of academic legal debate (rhetoric).

"Ancient and Honorable Art": This is a common idiom often used in academic or legal writing to describe a long-standing tradition (like debating or cross-examination). [Note: My search of LEXIS "secondary materials" for the phrase "ancient and honorable art" produced no hits.]

Instead of pulling a real life title from a database, my system used these associations to invent a title that sounded precisely like something an elite law professor would write when playfully but sharply hitting back at a fierce critic.

The Math of Page Numbers

You'll notice that I gave a very specific citation: 67 Fla. L. Rev. F. 68 (2015).

Bradley Smith's real article ends on page 67.

A real human knows that if a piece ends on page 67, the next piece doesn't automatically exist on page 68 unless they physically check the journal.

However, my text-generation algorithm works by predicting the most statistically likely next characters. Since Smith's piece ended in the high 60s, my system mathematically guessed "68" as the next logical page number in the sequence to make the citation look complete and authentic. [Note: One of Gemini's citations included an end page. Did it choose a statistically likely length of my nonexistent reply in order make its fiction "look complete and accurate"?]

Summary: Stochastically Correct, Factually Wrong

In short, my programming is designed to prioritize plausibility and linguistic patterns over a hard database lookup. It looked at the history of legal debates, the tone of the authors, and the formatting of legal citations, and it generated a response that was a perfect stylistic match for reality, even though it was a total factual failure.

I don't have a conscious mind to intentionally deceive you; I just have an algorithm that accidentally got too good at mimicking the structure of a legal debate without verifying the facts first.

Concluding notes and questions:

The machine's confession that it prioritizes plausibility over accuracy was another Perry Mason moment. Did perfidious programmers produce this priority purposely? Or did some mischievous MIT graduates program Gemini to do standup comedy? Could Gemini's priorities be corrected by saying, "Please don't do that"? Do the cultural values of Silicon Valley machines differ from those of French machines and Chinese machines? Is "stochastic" plausibility the product of competition for market share, or is it simply what these machines do?

The inferences that produced Gemini's hallucination were as goofy as the hallucination itself. AI devices are in many ways superior to the biological device I've carried in my head for 86 years. They have more brute power than I do and a larger data base as well. They can run all night and not grow weary. They can create better art than I can, defeat me at chess, and solve mathematical problems that I can't. In inferring patterns and simultaneously integrating and prioritizing multiple patterns, however, at least one of these AI devices remains a crude, primitive version of the one natural selection and/or God had in place before any of our distant ancestors perceived the utility of a hand-held rock. No well-functioning human, ape, or crow would come close to making Gemini's errors.

Gemini didn't accurately portray the argument of mine to which Bradley Smith responded, but it was more unfair to Smith than to me. Smith is not at all fierce, aggressive, or truculent. He is a careful, thoughtful, fair-minded, and generous scholar.

Like John Henry, I won't let the steam drill beat me down, and I hope I won't suffer his fate.

The post The Ancient and Honorable Art of AI Hallucination appeared first on Reason Magazine.

No Liability for Scientific Publisher (Elsevier) in Defamation Lawsuit by Air Purifier Company

2026-10-22T18:57:27Z

From Judge Kenneth Bell (W.D.N.C.) today in Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. v. Elsevier Ltd Inc.:

In this action, now spanning over four and a half years and nearly 400 docket entries, Plaintiff Global Plasma Solutions, Inc. ("GPS") contends that its air purifier business was greatly harmed by a defamatory article published in Building and Environment ("BAE"), a scientific journal owned by Defendant Elsevier …. Specifically, GPS alleges that several critiques of its "bipolar ionization" technology were false and Elsevier's advertisement of BAE's articles as "peer reviewed" violated the Lanham Act….

The law provides strong protection for scientific inquiry and debate on matters of public concern. This includes the allegedly defamatory article, which was published in March 2021 at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when air purification technologies were under intense scrutiny.

Because the Court finds that GPS was a limited purpose public figure with respect to the safety and efficacy of its bipolar ionization technology and cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that Elsevier published the article with "actual malice," Elsevier is entitled to summary judgment on GPS's defamation claim. Similarly, a reasonable jury could not find that Elsevier is liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act, where there is insufficient evidence that a substantial portion of the intended audience would be misled by the truthful statements that the article was "peer reviewed" or that an Elsevier advertisement was a proximate cause of GPS's claimed diminution in its corporate value….

[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to GPS, the conduct alleged here—while in several respects falling well short of being fabricated or fraudulent data—might possibly justify limiting the full, dispositive First Amendment protection for scientific opinion urged by Elsevier. However, the Court need not (and will not) reach a definitive conclusion on the scope of the Article's "scientific opinion" protection because, as discussed below, GPS has not shown evidence of actual malice sufficient to support its defamation claim, which independently resolves GPS's defamation claim in Elsevier's favor….

There's a lot more, which you can read here; and there's something at the end about public access to court records:

As explained by the Court at the hearing on these motions and in its earlier order on the Parties' various motions to seal, the Parties have excessively filed memoranda, documents, and other exhibits under seal in violation of the strict legal principles applicable to publicly filed motions, in particular dispositive motions at summary judgment (including, incredibly, press releases and other obviously public documents).

Under the governing First Amendment standard, a "denial of access" to publicly filed documents "must be necessitated by a compelling … interest and narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Accordingly, a party moving to seal documents filed in support of summary judgment in a civil case bears a heavy burden. Having reviewed the Parties' summary judgment submissions, the Court finds that all memoranda and exhibits filed under seal should be refiled in unredacted form and linked to the original filed sealed exhibit on the schedule described below. The Court will allow the Parties a short period of time to file very limited and narrowly tailored requests to maintain the sealing or partial sealing of specific filings and exhibits, other than the Parties' memoranda of law and any exhibit specifically cited in this order….

The Parties are directed to refile—on or before October 26, 2026—an unredacted copy of any memoranda in support of or in opposition to the Parties' Summary Judgment motions and any exhibit specifically cited in this Order that were filed under seal. All refiled documents must be linked to the originally sealed filing. All remaining sealed exhibits filed in connection with the Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment must be similarly refiled and linked on or before 14 days from the date of this Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Parties may file under seal very limited and narrowly tailored requests to maintain the sealing of any of the remaining sealed exhibits on or before 10 days after the date of this Order ….

The post No Liability for Scientific Publisher (Elsevier) in Defamation Lawsuit by Air Purifier Company appeared first on Reason Magazine.

What Happens to Representative Ilhan Omar's Congressional Seat if the United States Files Suit to Denaturalize Her?

2026-10-22T20:21:44Z

[This post was co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman.]

There have been many news reports suggesting that the United States Department of Justice may pursue denaturalization proceedings against Representative Ilhan Omar. These proceedings can take the form of a civil suit under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. The United States may also bring a criminal indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. While the criminal statute has a ten-year statute of limitations, the civil statute does not have any statute of limitation. Moreover, the civil statute requires a lower burden of proof: "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt." The civil proceeding also does not afford the defendant a jury trial. USCIS and Congress.gov have published detailed analyses of how denaturalization operates.

Here, we do not opine on the merits of a potential civil or criminal denaturalization proceeding against Omar, or what sorts of procedures and defenses she would have access to. Instead, we intend to explain what would happen to her congressional seat in light of denaturalization proceedings.

We start with the relevant constitutional text. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . . . ." (emphasis added) And Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Since the beginning of the Republic, there have been challenges as to whether a member-elect has the requisite years of citizenship. Professor Derek Muller's entry in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (3d) on the Judge of Elections Clause explains two historically noteworthy challenges to qualifications:

In the decades after the Founding, both houses of Congress routinely judged the elections, returns, and qualifications of their members. One early and contested instance arose in 1793. The Pennsylvania legislature elected Albert Gallatin to the [United States] Senate. Gallatin, a member of the [Jeffersonian] Democratic-Republican party, was a rival of Alexander Hamilton, a prominent Federalist. Doubts arose about Gallatin's eligibility for the Senate. He was born in Switzerland and had resided in the United States for thirteen years. But it was unclear whether Gallatin had been a U.S. citizen for the requisite nine years. Two Senate committees dominated by Federalists found against Gallatin, and he was barred from the seat. . . .

A[] notorious contest during Reconstruction came from the election of Hiram Revels [in 1870], the first black Senator. Opponents first charged that his election was improper because the governor of Mississippi who signed his certificate of election was only the provisional governor and therefore not authorized to certify the legislature's selection of Revels. Challengers also claimed that Revels was not "nine years a citizen" because he was not a citizen under the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 [and so Revels was only a citizen between 1868 and 1870]. Defenders noted that Revels had previously resided in Ohio, where he had voted in that state and must have been a citizen. In the end, the Senate seated him over the objection of a few Democrats.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the United States initiates civil denaturalization proceedings before the new Congress meets in January 2027. This procedure would certainly take some time, and it may not even reach a final judgment (up to the resolution of certiorari) during the duration of Omar's (likely) elected two-year term. Still, absent a final judgment, we sketch out several possible issues.

First, could the House of Representatives determine that Omar lacks the qualifications to be a member of Congress (i.e., a citizen for seven years) in the absence of some judicial finding by a federal district court? The answer is "yes." The House of Representatives is a coordinate branch of government that can make its own determinations of fact when seating a member. The Constitution empowers the House to determine if a member-elect is a citizen and for how long he has been a citizen. There is no need to wait for a federal court to rule on the matter. No such prior judicial proceedings occurred in the case of Albert Gallatin. That question and its answer, we think, should not be controversial.

Second, could the House of Representatives judge Omar's qualifications in the middle of her elected term? Or, can those qualifications only be judged at the time when she is seated? We think it is reasonable to suggest, based on the text, that qualifications should only be determined at the outset of the new Congress, or when a member is first admitted and allowed to take her oath, but we admit there is no definitive answer here. The alternative view is that a member must have the requisite qualifications over the entire course of her elected term, and her house always retains the ability to adjudicate those qualifications if an objection is raised by another member. In these circumstances, a member could simply raise an objection to Omar's qualifications and seek a roll call vote. If determinations about qualifications continuously require a mere majority, as they do at the start of a two-year congressional term, then a mere majority might effectively "expel" Omar. On the other hand, it might be argued that where a mid-session disqualification vote has the effect of expulsion, then a two-thirds vote is required. We are not aware of any congressional precedents that provide clear analogues or guidance on this point.

Third, what happens at noon on January 3 when the new Congress meets? At that juncture, a member could raise an objection to Omar's qualifications. And under established House precedents, Omar would be asked to "step aside" until her qualifications are settled. The potential chaos that could follow is ably described in an excellent article by Professor Brian Kalt:

Under U.S. House precedent, any member-elect can challenge the right of any other member-elect to take the oath of office at the beginning of a new term. The uncontested members-elect then swear in and decide the fate of those who were forced to stand aside. If the House is closely divided and there are disputed elections at the margins, a minority party could exploit this procedure to try to seize control of the House. This would be outrageous and damaging, even if the effort failed. Contending for ultimate control, both sides could level motions, appeals, and tit-for-tat pre-oath challenges. The proto-House would degenerate into a chaotic mass of votes, meta-votes (about who gets to vote), and meta-meta-votes before anyone has even been sworn in. Instead of the House being controlled by the party that won the most seats in the election, it might go instead to the party that is most disciplined and unified—or, failing that, to the party that is more adept at parliamentary machinations. This nightmare is not completely hypothetical; the House once witnessed a power grab much like this—and it succeeded. But even an unsuccessful attempt could worsen the national partisan divide, weaken the House's legitimacy, and threaten the House's already dangerously low levels of comity. So could an attempt by a majority to bolster its advantage by a seat or two.

If the House splits 217-to-217, and Omar would be the 218th vote giving the Democrats an actual majority, the situation could quickly reach an impasse. Indeed, there may not even be enough votes to select a Speaker until Omar's contest is settled. Likewise, in the absence of any working majority, there may not even be enough support to appoint a committee to look into the matter.

Fourth, let us consider whether Omar could be arrested or detained at the start of immigration proceedings. She could be arrested and then incarcerated if indicted under the criminal denaturalization statute. The Constitution's Privilege from Arrest Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) provides "Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." It is clear enough the criminal denaturalization offense is a felony. The clause would not immunize her against arrest for allegedly violating this statute.

There is a separate issue whether this clause would prohibit the government from seizing and then detaining Omar in civil immigration facilities under the civil denaturalization statute. We do not take a position whether the allegations made in this civil proceeding would amount to a "breach of the peace" under the clause. One might believe that this constitutional provision would preclude arrest of a Representative based on ongoing civil denaturalization proceedings, but because the Constitution's "breach of the peace" language lacks substantial development from the courts, we, at this juncture, take no position on this issue.

We raise two other issues that do not have settled answers. First, there is some authority for believing that the scope of the constitutional privilege against arrest extends to members-elect, and not merely just to seated members. So even if the House "sets aside" Omar during an election contest based on qualifications, she would still enjoy the same privilege against arrest that seated members enjoy. Second, there is an open question about when, during the House's two-year constitutional term, the privilege applies. The clause applies "during [a member's] Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." In light of NLRB v. Noel Canning, we have doubts this clause applies during intersession recesses longer than three days. During a period of time when the clause does not apply, neither Omar nor any other member (or member-elect) would enjoy any privilege against arrest.

Fifth, let us assume that a federal court issues a final judgment denaturalizing Omar, and all of her appeals and opportunities to seek reconsideration are exhausted. At that moment, she would no longer be a citizen of the United States. But the Constitution does not expressly require that a person presently be a citizen. The text provides:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

The citizenship requirement is phrased in the past tense: "been seven Years a Citizen." Once a person has held U.S. citizenship for seven years, that person will have satisfied the citizenship qualification for the rest of their life—even if, as an adult, they subsequently voluntarily, intentionally, and knowingly renounce their U.S. citizenship, and even if they do so while actually serving as a member. The text does not clearly require that a person have seven years of citizenship in the seven immediate years before he was elected. Under a literal reading of the text, a person who has held U.S. citizenship for seven years, followed by a renunciation of his citizenship while an adult (arguably) should be allowed to serve in Congress, even if he would not be able under federal law to vote for himself in any federal election. Admittedly, this literal reading of the Constitution's House Qualifications Clause is counter-intuitive. In our prior scholarly writings, we have repeatedly emphasized Dixonian strict legalism as the appropriate method of interpretation of constitutional text involving qualifications in order to maximize voter choice. That is the Democracy Canon.

Sixth, if Omar were denaturalized in 2027, one must still ask was she a citizen of the United States for seven years? Was she ever a citizen? In other words, is the effect of denaturalization to simply withhold citizenship and its benefits from that person going forward post-adjudication, or is the effect to create a legal fiction such that the person was never a citizen in the first place? Is denaturalization retroactive? By way of analogy, some have argued that Donald Trump ceased being President at some point on or after January 6, 2021, and all actions taken in the final two weeks of his administration were ultra vires. They argue that Mike Pence was, in fact, the real President! This position resembles the arguments that Hiram Revels was not a citizen before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, in light of Dred Scott. We addressed this point in our article on Amendment XIV, Section 3:

Is it really that implausible to think that Section 3 could apply retroactively to a person who was already out of office? Retrospective law-making is an American tradition. Consider the case of Senator Hiram Revels, who was the first black person elected to the United States Senate. His Senate term began in 1870. At the time, did he meet the requirements of being a citizen for seven years? After all, stretching from 1857 to 1863, Dred Scott was still the law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment was only ratified in 1868. Some senators argued that Revels was not qualified [arguing that Revel's citizenship only existed after the Fourteenth Amendment went into effect]. But the Senate administered the oath to Revels, in effect retroactively applying Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship provision. Prior to 1868, Revels might not have experienced life as an American citizen for seven years. Under Dred Scott (1857), he was not a citizen. But the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. Section 1 apparently retroactively made Revels a citizen for the time period he had experienced life as a non-citizen. And the Senate seated Revels.

When seating Revels, Reconstruction-era Republicans argued that Revels was a citizen for nine years (as is required for senators) even if he did not enjoy or experience any of the incidents of citizenship prior to 1868. By contrast, today, Republicans may argue that Omar was never a citizen, much less a citizen for seven years, even though she had all of the incidents of citizenship prior to January 2027.

The civil statute provides that denaturalization "shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate." In other words, the process relates back. If this understanding of our law is correct, even though Omar clearly spent more than seven years living in the United States as a citizen with a passport and even served in Congress, she would have never actually become a citizen. She may be viewed as something akin to a "de facto officer." (We use "akin" as we do not think rank-and-file members of Congress are "officers".) It appears that the law here may be unsettled. We expect that if a final judgment were reached by the courts denaturalizing Omar, and if Omar had exhausted all opportunities for reconsideration and appeal, then the House would rely on that finding. We do not say that the House would be strictly bound to rely on that final judgment. And again, if the federal courts only so concluded after Omar was sworn in and seated as a member, it is unclear what vote—a mere majority or two-thirds—would be needed to unseat and/or expel her.

Seventh, what happens to any actions, including votes, taken by Omar if a court rules that she was not a citizen at the time she served in the House? To make the hypothetical more useful, imagine that she was the deciding vote that gave the House a majority to pass a bill. Had her vote not been counted, the House would have deadlocked 217-to-217, and the President would not have been able to sign it into law. If the vote took place under a prior Congress, such legislation would be insulated against judicial review inquiring into the qualification of members by Chief Justice Chase's decision in Griffin's Case. If the vote took place in the current Congress Congress, such legislation would be insulated against judicial review inquiring into the qualification of members by the enrolled bill rule, which establishes that the authentication of a bill by the House's presiding officer should be viewed as conclusive evidence that all constitutional procedures for bill approval were complied with. So any legislation Omar had voted on was and would remain as valid as it ever was.

Eighth, and finally, what happens if the federal district court rules that Omar is denaturalized, and in reliance on that final judgment, she is expelled from the current House or not seated in a new House, but that judicial ruling is subsequently reversed by a higher federal court, e.g., the United States Supreme Court? Here we quote from our article on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

A prominent example may illustrate this principle: the case of Representative Victor L. Berger. In November 1918, Berger, a socialist, was elected to represent a House district for Milwaukee, Wisconsin in the 66th Congress. In February 1919, Berger was convicted in federal district court proceedings for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. When the 66th Congress met on May 19, 1919, Berger was free on bail. Faced with this conviction, the House proceeded to exclude Berger by resolution on November 10, 1919. The standard narrative is that his exclusion was based upon his antiwar agitation during World War I—in other words, his exclusion was purportedly founded upon Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the legal standard or rationale on which the House refused to seat Berger is far from clear.

Berger's seat was declared vacant. A new election was held, in which Berger was a candidate, and notwithstanding his re-election to the seat, the 66th House refused to seat him a second time. In November 1920, Berger ran yet again in the general election for a seat in the 67th House. He was not excluded from the ballot. Berger did not prevail in that election. In January 1921, before the 66th House expired, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. After the Supreme Court's ruling, Berger ran, and prevailed in, three subsequent elections. He was seated in the 68th, 69th, and 70th Houses.

[Professors] Baude and Paulsen write that "curiously, after the convictions were reversed the House allowed Berger to sit in the sixty-eighth through seventieth Congresses." They do not explain why this seating was "curious." The Supreme Court's decision vacating a conviction under the Espionage Act could have no legal effect on a Section 3 disqualification. Only Congress can relieve that disability by a 2/3 vote of each house. And no such vote took place.

In short, if Omar was undenaturalized—or maybe better to say she was never denaturalized in the first place—a future Congress could seat her. Alternatively, even if a federal court denaturalizes Omar, our view is that members of Congress could independently determine that Omar was and is a citizen for purposes of the House Qualifications Clause. At that point, the tension would not be between the House and the President, but between the House and the federal judiciary.

The relationship between citizenship and qualifications is a tale as old as the Republic. Denaturalization would add a new twist to this old drama.

[Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor. Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology, Ireland. Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad.]

The post What Happens to Representative Ilhan Omar's Congressional Seat if the United States Files Suit to Denaturalize Her? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own.

2026-10-22T18:00:13Z

In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."

Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)

What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.

Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)

Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.

Rent

In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."

Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."

"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.

Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.

When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."

I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.

Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."

This one belonged in the trash.

Sports Betting

In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."

I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.

The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.

If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.

Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.

Homelessness

In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.

"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."

The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.

In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.

Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.

Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.

Ethanol

Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.

"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."

What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.

The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.

Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.

SWAT Raids

In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.

So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.

The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.

Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."

Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.

When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.

I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.

Tipping

In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."

Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.

It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.

Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.

To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.

The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr Echoes Trump, Threatens Broadcasters Over 'Fake Polls'

2026-10-22T17:30:30Z

Once again, a member of President Donald Trump's administration is threatening to punish private citizens for their speech using the power of the government.

Specifically, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened broadcasters who dare to report on polls the president doesn't approve of. Even if the complaint were valid, it would be difficult to enforce without violating the First Amendment.

"During this election season, there has been a significant surge in entirely Fake Polls and Suppression Polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm," FCC Chairman Brendan Carr wrote on X. "Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis."

Carr is directly adopting Trump's terminology, in addition to his erratic capitalization: The president often uses the term suppression polls to describe surveys that don't reflect in his favor. The implication is that these polls are manufactured to conceal or downplay enthusiasm for Trump or his preferred candidates, making it less likely that his supporters will turn out if they think it's a lost cause.

Carr doesn't single out any offenders, though there are some likely examples. This week, purported pollster Wedgewood Polls revealed that as part of an "experimental project," it had released surveys with "fabricated numbers" that were printed by outlets like FiftyPlusOne (which sussed out the fraud) and The New York Times.

Similarly, in August, Median Strategies withdrew two polls, then revealed that it had fabricated the results for a "social experiment."

Each scenario is deplorable. And depending on what promises were made, it's possible one firm or the other could face legal consequences.

But it's hard to see how a news outlet could face legal reprisal for just reporting the results of a survey it thought was conducted accurately.

"The FCC takes these issues seriously," Carr added. "Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations."

There are indeed rules against news distortion and broadcast hoaxes, but they're narrowly tailored to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment.

"News distortion 'must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report,'" according to the FCC. In addition, "broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable."

The hoax rule, on the other hand, is even less applicable: It involves "broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe," where the broadcaster "knows this information is false" and can foreseeably "cause substantial public harm" but airs it anyway, and the broadcast then "does in fact directly cause substantial public harm."

In other words, neither standard applies to a broadcaster that covered an inaccurate poll, especially without knowing at the time that it was wrong.

"Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it, but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong," Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, wrote on X. "FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith."

Carr doesn't specify what he thinks should happen to any offenders, though since he tends to define "public interest" as whatever Trump says, we can make an educated guess.

Right before the 2024 presidential election, The Des Moines Register published a poll that found then–Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa by three percentage points. Trump ended up winning the state by 13 percentage points, but he was apparently so upset by the poll that he sued both the Register and pollster Ann Selzer, claiming the inaccurate survey constituted "brazen election interference" that violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.

It was clear at the time that the lawsuit was completely meritless. Just as Carr suggested this week in his social media post, Trump was trying to create an exception to the First Amendment for "fake news."

"In the United States there is no such thing as a claim for 'fraudulent news,'" Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote in a motion on the defendants' behalf. "No court in any jurisdiction has ever held such a cause of action might be valid, and few plaintiffs have ever attempted to bring such outlandish claims."

A judge agreed and dismissed the lawsuit last month.

"If someone is accurately reporting the results of a poll, that wouldn't be a false statement," UCLA law professor Rick Hasen told The Washington Post at the time. "The poll might have errors in it, but that wouldn't be a false statement."

That's as true then as it is now. Unless he can somehow prove that a broadcaster knew a pollster had faked a survey, there's no way Carr can punish someone for reporting on the results without running afoul of the First Amendment.

"Brendan Carr is not the journalism police. And he is just about the least qualified person in the country to lecture the press about journalistic ethics," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an emailed statement. "News broadcasters have a First Amendment right to report polling data, even if it proves to be inaccurate, just like they have a First Amendment right to report on Carr and Trump's own countless lies and distortions, even when they turn out to be inaccurate. FCC policies about hoaxes and distortions must be applied narrowly to avoid clashing with the Constitution, if they can be constitutionally applied at all."

The post FCC Chair Brendan Carr Echoes Trump, Threatens Broadcasters Over 'Fake Polls' appeared first on Reason Magazine.

NYT Interviews Me About "A Double Standard For 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' Labels?

2026-10-22T16:43:22Z

Back in February, I submitted a letter to the editor of the New York Times objecting to how I was often labelled as a "conservative" even as liberal law professors did not receive that label. The Times did not publish the letter, so I posted it on the blog. I thought that was the end of the matter, but I was wrong. Patrick Healy, is the assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust, reached out to me. He was starting a newsletter and podcast that responds to reader concerns. We spoke for about fifteen minutes about this issue.

That interview has now been posted here. It begins this way:

PATRICK: So Josh, you reached out after The Times twice described you as a, quote, conservative, end quote, law professor. And you said the conservative label was accurate, but that The Times applies labels like conservative and liberal inconsistently to law professors and analysts, and that a scholar's view should speak for itself. I'd welcome you unpacking that.

JOSH: Sure. This has been a longstanding grievance of mine, and not just against The Times, against all the major media outlets. I'll frequently talk to a reporter and they'll say something like, "How would you identify yourself?" And they're not asking for my pronouns. They're trying to get at my politics. And sometimes I'm of course like, you know, "I'm a law professor." And they say, "Well, how do you characterize yourself?" It's like, "Well, I'm a constitutional law professor," and I know what they're getting at. Eventually I just say, fine, if you want to call me conservative, you can.

And I suspect the reason why they do this is to give their readers sort of a grounding of where I'm coming from. And if this was sort of a neutral policy that's applied across the board, I wouldn't have much ground to object, but I find that it's not.

Back in February of this year, I was quoted twice in The New York Times back to back in the span of 24 hours, which is, you know, pretty cool. But I sort of noticed that both of the references were to Josh Blackman as a "conservative" law professor. And I just thought that was strange. So I went through the Westlaw archives and just sort of searched for "liberal" law professors and "conservative" law professors in the New York Times database, and it was far more likely that you're identifying a conservative than a liberal. And those numbers are stacked because liberals are quoted even more often. So the numbers even have a greater disparity.

And this sort of reinforces, I think, a perception that both the academy and frankly the media views a liberal position as a neutral position. And the conservative position is the other, the outlier. And that's why you have to have this sort of nomenclature, this sort of adjective to describe it. So I wrote a letter to the editor back in February. You did not publish it. OK. That's your prerogative, but I do appreciate the chance that you reached out to me and I'm glad to talk with you about it right now.

PATRICK: Yeah. Josh, I think there's real truth to your critique and it's something we need to do a better job on. It's kind of exactly what you said in terms of why we do it. We're trying to give readers more factual context about who's speaking or why their views rise to the level of a story. Sometimes it's notable that it's a conservative legal scholar criticizing President Trump's politics more than it might be surprising that a liberal is doing that.

Read the whole interview. I thought Healy was very fair. I hope journalists at the Times and other outlets give more consideration to this issue.

It's been a busy week for the mainstream media. I was also interviewed by NPR for All Things Considered about the Supreme Court publisher recusals.

The post NYT Interviews Me About "A Double Standard For 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' Labels? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

RFK Jr. Wants To Cut Red Tape in Kidney Care. He Should Go Further.

2026-10-22T15:40:22Z

Like most of American healthcare, kidney care has for decades been plagued by red tape. The Trump administration says it wants to change that. On Tuesday, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his department's Kidney Care National Plan, which promises to introduce more competition, reduce regulatory barriers, expand patient choice, and overhaul America's kidney transplant system.

Much of the plan focuses on barriers to entry in dialysis care, which treats nearly 558,000 Americans. While dialysis can be performed at home, most patients receive treatment at specialized facilities, which must comply with federal certification requirements governing equipment, staffing, water quality, and patient safety in order to participate in Medicare.

Kennedy argues that regulatory barriers have discouraged competition and innovation, leaving patients with fewer dialysis treatment options. "Dialysis technology is an extraordinary technology," said Kennedy at the press conference, but "because of monopolies in the system and the barriers to new entrants, we have not seen any real improvements in that technology."

Of course, the existence of large or even monopolistic companies is not in itself evidence of a problem, but government regulation can often entrench those companies' positions in the market. "I like the fact that they're recognizing that a lot of regulatory…barriers are contributing to the problem, and that's refreshing to hear," says Jeffrey Singer, a practicing general surgeon and senior fellow at Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason. Singer says that removing barriers that prevent new companies from competing with established providers could not only increase choice but also drive down prices.

HHS says that two companies, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, control approximately 74 percent of the American dialysis market. As of 2019, roughly a third of Americans lived in areas where the only available dialysis provider was one of those two companies, according to the agency. The administration argues that government regulation has helped entrench this dominance by making it difficult for new providers to enter the market.

To address this, the Kidney Care National Plan suggests a number of reforms, including simplifying certification requirements. HHS also plans to investigate whether dominant dialysis providers have used payment arrangements and legal strategies to secure higher reimbursements without delivering better care.

The 17-page report calls for a review of existing requirements, but it does not specify which regulations will be repealed, nor does it establish a timeline for doing so. It also does not propose any significant reduction in the government's role in financing the distorted market. Instead, the plan largely seeks to make existing government-financed systems such as Medicare more competitive and efficient.

Kennedy has also correctly identified the need for reform regarding kidney donations. Nearly 90,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant at any given time in America, and 11 people die every day waiting for a kidney. The transplant process is currently managed by Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs), which are federally certified nonprofits responsible for recovering organs from donors and coordinating their transfer. There are currently just 55 federally designated OPOs operating in the United States, and HHS argues that they behave as "regional monopolies." Since no new OPOs have been approved in the last year, the Kidney Care National Plan suggests fast-tracking certification.

The plan also seeks to make living kidney donation easier by reducing financial barriers. Following the passage of the Honor Our Living Donors Act in February, HHS revised federal reimbursement rules so that a donor's eligibility for financial assistance is no longer determined by the transplant recipient's income. Eligible donors can receive up to $6,000 to cover expenses, including travel, lost wages, and childcare.

However, the reforms proposed stop short of allowing kidney donors to receive direct compensation for the organs themselves, which remains prohibited under federal law. "I can sell my blood. Why can't I sell my kidney?" Singer asks.

Peter Jaworski, director of the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group, feels similarly, arguing that financial incentives are available to nearly everyone involved in kidney transplantation except the donors themselves. "According to this plan, it's OK to use incentives to encourage them to be more productive, to actually do a better job," Jaworski tells Reason, referring to transplant surgeons, hospitals, and organ procurement organizations. "The only exception, once again, is the donor who is offering a kidney."

Better solutions exist, according to Jaworski, who points to the proposed End Kidney Deaths Act. The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R–N.Y.) last year, would offer living kidney donors a $50,000 refundable tax credit, distributed over five years. "We have those systems in order to make sure that we can treat patients. That's the point of blood donation. That's the point of plasma donation. That's the point of kidney donation too."

America's plasma market is an excellent example of financial incentives encouraging donation. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. allows plasma donors to be compensated, and despite accounting for just over 4 percent of the world's population, it supplies approximately 68 percent of the plasma collected globally for manufacturing medicines.

"Why do you think America does it? Is it because in America there's way more altruism than in France or Italy or Belgium? No, it's because in the United States you can be paid to donate plasma," argues Jaworski.

The Trump administration appears to recognize that government overreach has stifled competition and restricted patient choice. It also recognizes that living adults donating kidneys will be part of the solution to the long, deadly waiting lists. But its plan leaves the government's outsize role in kidney care largely untouched. For patients facing years on dialysis or waiting for a lifesaving transplant, recognizing the problem is not enough.

The post RFK Jr. Wants To Cut Red Tape in Kidney Care. He Should Go Further. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A Religious Preschool Is Barred From a State's Universal Preschool Program. SCOTUS Will Decide What's Legal.

2026-10-22T15:23:47Z

On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that asks whether Colorado has unlawfully discriminated against a religious preschool because the school is barred from participating in the state's universal preschool program due to its refusal to accept LGBTQ families. In addition to involving multiple hot-button political and cultural issues, the case also has big implications for the future of federal antidiscrimination law.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is not about a state law that directly prohibits a religious preschool from operating. Rather, at issue here is a government requirement that any preschool that wants to participate in the state's universal preschool program, and receive the public benefits that follow, must first satisfy various criteria, including that "each preschool provider provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability."

According to the Catholic preschools overseen by the Archdiocese of Denver, however, complying with that rule would force the schools to violate their religious beliefs. "It is undisputed that these preschools would otherwise be eligible [universal preschool] providers," the schools told the Supreme Court. "They are excluded solely because of their religious exercise—namely, their religious practices of ensuring that all enrolling families are supportive of the Catholic Church's teachings on sex and marriage and of treating enrolled four-year-olds in accordance with their biological sex."

These schools can point to a pair of recent Supreme Court precedents that will very likely count in their favor. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), the Court held that if a state provides educational subsidies that help parents send their children to private schools, the state "cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious." Then, in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court held that Maine's tuition assistance program violated the Constitution by excluding private schools that offered "sectarian" education. "A State's antiestablishment interest," the decision said, "does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."

I would expect the outcome of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy to follow in this same general pattern and hold something to the effect that when a state provides an educational public benefit, it must make some sort of accommodation for the religious views of the recipients.

In Other Legal News

Justice Elena Kagan made news a few months back when she defended her conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court from the oft-heard charge that they are totally in the tank for President Donald Trump. "I don't see this as a court that is just like, 'We're just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.' You know, quite the opposite," Kagan said. "I think that that is a bad rap." In support of her argument, Kagan pointed to the fact that the Supreme Court had recently ruled against Trump on the two big issues that Trump himself valued the most: tariffs and birthright citizenship.

Kagan was in the news again on Tuesday, this time because she publicly blasted those same conservative colleagues for issuing decisions on voting rights and political gerrymandering that, in Kagan's words, have produced "a democracy that does not work as well as it should." According to Kagan, the Court's conservative majority "has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works."

Does this mean that Kagan has now stopped defending the conservative justices from the pro-Trump charge? Not at all. In fact, as The New York Times put it, "she reiterated her defense of the conservative-dominated bench from a July appearance and said it was a 'bum rap' to suggest the court had been too deferential to Mr. Trump."

I don't know about you, but I find Kagan to be a refreshing public figure in these simplistic, partisan times. She is a staunch legal liberal with clearly stated objections to what the Supreme Court's conservative majority is getting up to, yet she refuses to be associated with the laziest progressive attacks on the Court. How many people of comparable public stature these days are willing to call out the shortcomings of their own side?

The post A Religious Preschool Is Barred From a State's Universal Preschool Program. SCOTUS Will Decide What's Legal. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Swamp King

2026-10-22T13:44:20Z

An uncanny strength of the second Trump administration has been its ability to be involved in so many scandals that no single one seems to become a dominant story.

Take the most recent allegations about Alina Habba, Trump's former personal defense attorney, who recently landed a plush gig working for Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan banker. Habba will get $50 million over five years to do unspecified work for a company that barely exists, according to The New York Times, while Herrera got a presidential pardon for a 2025 campaign finance charge.

That's just a typical day for the current White House, where the mingling of personal and public business has become routine. Some days, the story is President Donald Trump trying to help himself to taxpayer funds by suing the government he runs, or shipping billions of taxpayer dollars to a foreign mining company partially owned by his sons. Other times, it is Trump selling political influence in the form of digital coins, or his appointees getting caught in naked pay-to-play schemes. If you have a hard time keeping track of it all, I get it. The corruption is so deep and wide that focusing on any singular item becomes difficult.

But that constellation of corruption might finally be breaking through to voters ahead of next month's midterm elections.

A recent Fox News poll found that "government corruption" was the top issue for voters, ranking ahead of inflation and gas prices. Conservative commentators are taking notice.

"What they're saying is, 'Look, we're tired of you getting rich and us getting poor,'" former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said this week.

Tim Carney, senior columnist at the conservative Washington Examiner, also tabs the corruption issue—along with other "avoidable mistakes" such as the Iran War and tariffs—as one of the major reasons why Democrats are likely to win the midterms:

Trump and his family have enriched themselves in this second term in ways more similar to third-world regimes or Cook County than to any previous administration. He and his family operate a financial company that has received heavy investments from Qatar's government. He's sold access to himself by selling otherwise worthless cryptocurrency. The IRS he controls settled a lawsuit with him, promising to pay him $1.8 billion (this settlement was voided by a judge).

Trump is not directly on the ballot next month, of course. And most voters might not be able to tell you the details of any single Trump scandal in detail. Even so, this may turn out to be the defining narrative of the second Trump administration, and there seems to be a growing consensus that Republicans have allowed (if not aided and abetted) his corrupt behavior, so it's time to give Democrats a shot at reining it in.

The Trump corruption issue is like the Biden cognitive decline issue in one key sense: Everyone around the president or even supporting him professionally from afar should be asked about it, and their lies/claims of ignorance should be hung around their necks like dumbbells.

— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) October 20, 2026

Vice President J.D. Vance told journalist Mark Halperin this week that he's "never seen any evidence that anybody's selling access to the president." When Halperin pushed back, Vance doubled down: "What I would say is I don't think there's evidence that the Trump family has become enriched by politics," the vice president said.

So either Vance isn't paying attention, or he's deliberately misleading. "Credit to Vance, it's as good an argument as is available to him," writes Daniel Foster at National Review. "The bad news is it's still not very good."

The internet nearly crashed on Wednesday as digital security and website administrators scrambled to patch two vulnerabilities in the PHP programming language that serves as the basis for many websites.

"Since its development in the 1990s, PHP has evolved into an essential scripting language for web development and is used across vast swaths of the internet in websites and software," explains Wired. "Everything from publishing systems like WordPress and Drupal to e-commerce platforms like Adobe's Magento are built on PHP."

Amid fears that hackers and AI agents could exploit the security weakness, many websites were taken offline. The National Security Agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom and the European Union sounded the alarm. Even the prime minister of Japan, Sanae Takaichi, was telling website administrators to take the issue seriously.

The potential hacking abilities of advanced AI agents make these sorts of security risks more serious. In this case, however, the problem was also identified with the help of AI.

"Ryan Austin, a researcher at Calif, uncovered the flaws with help from GPT-5.6 Sol, one of OpenAI's most advanced models, during an audit of PHP's source code in August," The Wall Street Journal reports. Another security researcher had flagged the issue years ago, but it had never been fixed because it was considered "considered too difficult to exploit" by human hackers.

This is the future of humanity's digital landscape. "Given the severity of these flaws and PHP's widespread use, we consider this one of the most impactful security issues in recent memory," OpenAI said in a statement on Wednesday. "It highlights how AI can uncover security flaws with internet-scale impact, but the same capabilities can also help attackers rapidly develop offensive tools and exploits."

(A shoutout to Reason's web development team for keeping us up and running, today and every day.)

"Fanciful fiction." Media outlets also continue to face decidedly nondigital threats over articles and polls that make the president unhappy.

The White House threatened Politico on Wednesday with unspecified "consequences" for publishing "fanciful fiction" in a series of articles earlier this month about White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. If the articles are not retracted, it would trigger "an immediate review of Politico's relationship with the White House, and, of course, consideration of all other appropriate and available legal remedies," wrote White House counsel William O. Scharf in a letter to the media outlet's publisher.

Meanwhile, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr issued vague threats to broadcasters who cover what Carr called "Fake Polls" intended to "alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm."

These sorts of threats are an affront to the First Amendment, of course. But they are downstream of a more significant issue: the very existence of the FCC.

It's a problem, obviously, that the FCC is run by an authoritarian jackass. But the bigger problem is that the agency contains so many tempting tools for an authoritarian jackass to wield. https://t.co/Q4IJXntkOy

— Jesse Walker (@notjessewalker) October 21, 2026

QUICK HITS

A judge in New Mexico ordered social media giant Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram, among other things) to pay $25 billion for misleading users about data privacy. Last month, a jury found that Meta had violated the state's consumer protection laws 43 million times.
Officials are trying to pin the blame on Elon Musk for a Starlink slowdown that limited the effectiveness of Ukrainian missile defenses. Musk says the decision was made by the U.S. military and Trump.
Peter Thiel joins the majority of Americans in thinking that Trump's Iran War was a mistake. Even so, the U.S. and Israel are reportedly planning another round of attacks after the election.
The environmental studies for California's high-speed rail line include such absurdities as counting bumblebees "one by one" and considering the train's "acoustic impacts on waterfowl and shorebirds." That's how to spend 16 years and $15 billion building nearly nothing.
Obvious metaphor alert!

A group dispatched by Hegseth's team in February attempted to move the historic globe, said to be used by Eisenhower during World War II.

They lifted it from its home in an Army office in the Pentagon … and dropped it. pic.twitter.com/vTjWdYXn0k

— Dan Lamothe (@DanLamothe) October 22, 2026

The post The Swamp King appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Switchblade Ban Violates Second Amendment, Fifth Circuit Holds

2026-10-22T12:33:18Z

By Michael E. Cumpston (Wikipedia)

From Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche, decided yesterday by Fifth Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, joined by Judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson:

This case presents a Second Amendment challenge to the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA)'s restrictions on switchblade knives. {Section 2 of the FSA, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1242, … place[s] a fine of up to "$2,000 or imprison[ment] not more than five years, or both" for anyone who "knowingly introduces, or manufactures for introduction, into interstate commerce, or transports or distributes in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife."}

Applying the framework articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, we hold that the FSA is unconstitutional. We determine that switchblade knives qualify as "Arms" and are covered by the "plain text" of the Second Amendment. Because the regulation implicates the amendment, the government bears the burden of establishing that the FSA comports with well-established principles of the Second Amendment and its regulatory tradition. The government fails to meet its burden. Specifically, the FSA's restrictions on the introduction, manufacture, transportation, and distribution of switchblades fail step two's "how" analysis….

Amongst other definitions, Heller highlighted that the founding era understood the term to mean "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." Switchblade knives have surely been used for "defence" and to "strike another."

Knives have been used for defense throughout human history, including the American founding. During the colonial period, "[e]veryone had a knife," and "as long as a man was required to defend his life," a "knife was a constant necessity." In the 1700s and during the American Revolution, knives were used for scavenging, hunting, and defense, and "[b]elt and pocket knives" accompanied frontiersmen "in the developing eastern settlements and on the western frontiers." Well into the 1800s, "men of all walks of life" were "accustomed to wear a knife as a necessary part of their garb."

Switchblade knives are no exception. "Springblade knives" (precursors to the modern switchblade) "have been made for hundreds of years because there has always been a need for a pocketknife that can be opened easily when the hands are wet, cold, or covered with gloves." In the 1700s, such knives were a part of certain types of flint-lock pistols: "[i]f the pistol mis-fired (which frequently happened) the person would touch the release button and the blade would open up, and be available for use." After the Civil War, patents for switchblade knives proliferated, and the large-scale production of "switchblades in the United States began in the 1880s, shortly" thereafter. Then, "[o]ver a 50 year period from the mid 1890s to the mid 1940s there had been approximately 20 different companies who had manufactured switchblade knives in this country." In short, some forms of switchblades have been commonly used for defense for hundreds of years. They are "arms."

Accordingly, the government's not-in-common-use argument fails. In addition to the wealth of history indicating the founding-era uses of switchblades for defense, the record indicates that there are "millions" of automatically opening knives in the United States now. The record further reflects that switchblade knives are lawfully used for "every day utility use, hunting, fishing, recreation, and camping and hiking." Despite the FSA, there are still lawful sales of switchblade knives in the United States. Consequently, switchblade knives are "arms" "in common use" both then and now….

We proceed to step two [of the Bruen analysis]. Here, we assess whether § 1242 is consistent with the principles that flow from the Second Amendment's history and tradition….

The government makes its stand primarily by citing a host of nineteenth-century cases in support of its argument that there existed a well-established tradition of regulating "inherently concealable weapons." The concealable nature of these weapons, the argument goes, makes them "particularly dangerous." The government connects this with the clear congressional history that suggests that Congress enacted the FSA because it believed that switchblades posed a unique danger and therefore needed to be restricted. This line of argument is focused on answering the "why" portion of the step two inquiry.

However, we do not reach the question of whether the government meets its burden as to the "why" analysis because it fails the "how" analysis. As mentioned, the Supreme Court has informed us that "[e]ven when a law regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason," it may not be "compatible with the right if it does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding." So, even if we grant the government's argument that there is a well-established tradition of regulating "inherently concealable weapons," this only addresses the "why" inquiry.

The government cites no historical analogue that regulates the manufacture, transportation, or distribution of "inherently concealable weapons," much less switchblade knives. Rather, its analogues suggest that there is a tradition of regulating the manner of carrying concealable weapons….

The government's best attempt at meeting its burden is through a single citation to a treatise-length law review article. See Gov't Br. at 16–17 (citing David B. Kopel & Joseph G.S. Greenlee, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 J. Legis. 223 (2024)). It cites the article to show how "statutes regulated concealable weapons in a variety of different ways, including banning carry or concealed carry, prohibiting their possession in specific locations, subjecting their sale or possession to taxes, or restricting the sale to minors." The referenced section of the article catalogs nearly two hundred pre-1900 statutes regulating daggers, dirks, and sword canes.

Of the nearly two-hundred statutes, only two regulate bladed weapons in an analogous manner as § 1242. See 1881 Ark. Acts 191, 192 (proscribing the "sell[ing], barter[ing] or exchang[ing]" of "any dirk or bowie knife, or sword or spear in a cane"); 1837 Ga. Laws 90, 90–91 (making unlawful "for any merchant, or vend[o]r of wares or merchandize in this State, or any other person or persons whatsoever, to sell, or offer to sell … Bowie, or any other kinds of knives, manufactured and sold for the purpose of wearing, or carrying the same as arms of offence or defense, pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears, &c"). Two laws out of nearly two hundred bring us into outlier territory….

John William Dillon (Dillon Law Group, A.P.C.), Richard Brent Cooper (Cooper & Scully, P.C.), and Daniel Schmutter (Hartman & Winnicki, P.C.) represent plaintiffs.

The post Switchblade Ban Violates Second Amendment, Fifth Circuit Holds appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Anti-Transgenderism/Anti-Homosexuality Activist Ordered to Stop Talking About Local Therapist/Pride Activist

2026-10-22T12:01:55Z

From Butler v. Lipscy, decided Monday by Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Keala Ede, joined by Judges Diane Bratvold and Jon Schmidt:

Butler alleged that Lipscy engaged in acts of harassment targeting Butler and her children, including: following, monitoring, or pursuing Butler; making unwanted visits to Butler; frightening Butler with threatening behavior; taking pictures of Butler without permission; and using social media to harass Butler….

The facts, according to the appellate court's summary of the trial court findings, were this:

At the time the district court issued the HRO, Butler was a licensed marriage and family therapist who served "historically marginalized communities." This included members of "the Queer community," which Butler defined as "the Two Spirit (2S)/Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Intersex/etc. community as a whole and individually." Butler was also "active in her local Itasca Pride board and community as a volunteer and current board member." She has three children, one of whom is "non-binary."

Lipscy held "Christian beliefs" that she posted about on the internet. And Lipscy administered a webpage called "Grand Rapids Rant."

Itasca Pride held a festival on June 23, 2024. Before that event, Lipscy posted on the internet about a public gathering called, "Protect the children from Pride/Drag show and Walk with Prayer," which Lipscy scheduled for the same date, time, and location as the Itasca Pride Festival. Before the events occurred, Lipscy wrote on the internet: "But if you cause one of these who trust in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and drowned in the depths of the sea. #BeTheirVoice Matthew 18:6." Lipscy also used the internet to encourage people to attend and to wear white shirts in opposition to Itasca Pride and in celebration of "traditional family values." At the June 23 Itasca Pride event, Lipscy took pictures of Butler's children, and Butler's husband told Lipscy to stop.

On September 28, Lipscy posted images from an Itasca Pride webpage on her Grand Rapids Rant internet site, with her own captions. These images included Butler's children with captions such as "Sickening," "Poor children," and "Those poor poor kids." Lipscy also identified Butler by name, listed Butler's title as "local therapist"—which "insinuate[ed] … [that] Butler was not a real therapist"—and referred to an event coordinated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Itasca Pride as having "influence over … children."

On October 20, Lipscy attended an event led by a school-board candidate who was advocating for a prohibition on transgender females in female sports. Lipscy broadcast the event on her Grand Rapids Rant webpage, identified Butler's husband, and described him as "pushing for boys to be in girls' bathrooms and supporting bringing kids to drag events." More specifically, Lipscy stated that Butler's husband "wasn't truly interested [on the day of the event] …, he just wanted to report back. Silly boy, [he] could've just watched live with [Butler]." In addition, "Butler's children attend the same school as … Lipscy's niece," and "Lipscy ha[d] been at the school since the above-described incidents … occurred."

Butler was "generally fearful for the safety of herself and children following the incidents involving … Lipscy." She "installed [four] cameras on her property and [two] cameras on her vehicle," "spent sessions with her clients discussing concerns the clients ha[d] about their safety given … Lipscy's social media posts referring to … Butler," "removed signage from her office, met with clients in a place other than her office, and met via tele-health to address concerns about client safety."

Her children became "afraid to go out in public without a parent and [had] an increased fear when out in the community." One of Butler's children "changed the way they dress[ed] because they [did] not want to get physically or emotionally hurt." Butler's children were "fearful that their photos [would] be put online to shame their family," "ask[ed] in public if they [were] safe," and "question[ed] whether people around them [were] 'people that hate Queer people.'"

The court issued a harassment restraining order that provided, in relevant part, that Lipscy

"shall not harass … [Butler] or her minor children included in the Petition";
"shall have no direct or indirect contact with … [Butler] or her minor children including any visits, phone calls, contact via electronic means such as email or social networking sites, threats or assaultive behavior to the protected persons, damaging or stealing property belonging to the protected persons, breaking into and entering the protected persons' residence, and/or taking pictures of the protected persons without permission from … [Butler]";
"is prohibited from being within 500 feet of … [Butler's] home" or "job site"; …
"is restrained from harassing, stalking, or threatening the protected persons, or engaging in other conduct that would place the protected persons in reasonable fear of bodily injury to that person"; and "is prohibited from the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the protected persons that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."

Given that the court had found that Lipscy's social media posts referring to Butler were "harassment," and then restrained Lipscy from "harassing" Butler, the order thus forbade Lipscy from continuing to mention Butler. And indeed the appellate court acknowledged this, stating (emphases added) that the HRO

"allows Lipscy to express her religious views, provided that she does not mention Butler and her children and does not approach Butler, her home, and her workplace," and
"merely prohibits [Lipscy] from directing harassing conduct toward Butler and her children—such as photographing them, repeatedly naming them, and targeting them."

The appellate court upheld the order, reasoning that Lipscy's actions could indeed be found to be harassment, defined by the Minnesota HRO statute as "repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another":

The district court determined that Lipscy "engaged in harassment," reasoning that Lipscy had: followed, monitored, or pursued Butler and her children; frightened Butler and her children; taken pictures of Butler's children without permission; and used social media to harass Butler on multiple occasions. In making this determination, the district court relied on evidence in the record that Lipscy had reposted pictures of Butler's children from the Itasca Pride webpage to the Grand Rapids Rant internet site with her own captions including: "Sickening," "Poor children," and "Those poor poor kids."

The district court also based its decision on evidence that Lipscy had reposted pictures from the Itasca Pride event while referring to Butler in a manner that questioned Butler's credentials as a therapist and had shared a video of Butler's husband while referring to Butler by name. And the district court made specific findings about how Butler was "generally fearful for the safety of herself and children following the incidents involving … Lipscy." …

And the court held that this doesn't violate Lipscy's free speech or religious freedom rights, because it is directed only at "speech or conduct that … is in violation of one's right to privacy," which Minnesota courts had held is constitutionally unprotected.

I think such an injunction is unconstitutional, at least as to the prohibition on repeatedly naming Butler in posts; for more on such orders, and the appellate decisions that mostly set them aside, see my Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment and Cases) article. And while I'm sympathetic to the argument that adults should keep the children out of this, I'm not sure it's constitutional even as to that. But in any event, the Minnesota Court of Appeals thought the injunction was permissible, and I thought it worthwhile to note that.

Sara Jane Baldwin (Gender Justice) represents plaintiff.

The post Anti-Transgenderism/Anti-Homosexuality Activist Ordered to Stop Talking About Local Therapist/Pride Activist appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Today in Supreme Court History: October 22, 1915

2026-10-22T11:00:42Z

10/22/1915: Hadacheck v. Sebastian argued.

The White Court (1914-1916)

The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 22, 1915 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Crime Is Down in D.C., but Trump's National Guard Deployment Probably Isn't the Cause

2026-10-22T10:00:04Z

One month after Washington, D.C., celebrated America's 250th anniversary, it marked a more ignominious milestone: a full year since President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard soldiers to the capital.

The approximately 4,600 National Guard members have been an unavoidable presence in D.C., wandering the National Mall and downtown streets in groups of three or four, or standing idly in Metro stations chatting. Occasionally, they're tasked with picking up trash at parks. Tourists take selfies with them by the now-fenced-off Lafayette Square in front of the White House.

They're not going anywhere. The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to acquire up to 2,000 housing units to support long-term National Guard deployments. The Department of Defense has estimated that extending the mission from October 2026 through to the end of the Trump administration in January 2029 will cost about $1.4 billion.

According to the Trump administration, all of this has been necessary to transform D.C. "from a crime-ridden city into a safe and beautiful haven for residents and visitors alike."

Crime in D.C. is down 20 percent from 2025, according to the Metropolitan Police Department, but an August Reuters investigation found National Guard soldiers were involved in only a tiny fraction of arrests in the safer parts of the city, mostly for minor offenses such as shoplifting and turnstile jumping. Crime has been dropping nationwide, a trend that started before Trump took office and includes cities that aren't occupied by federal law enforcement and soldiers.

Even if the Guard presence has contributed to a drop in crime, it's a civil liberties nightmare. It puts untrained military in the role of policing civilians. It usurps local police departments that are ostensibly answerable to the communities they police, and it normalizes the deployment of military forces domestically—a red line for a free society.

"There's a deep irony that here we are in the capital of the free world, and our president is treating it like a police state," Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, told PBS in August. "D.C. residents have lived with our National Guard troops in our neighborhoods for about a year, despite the absence of any genuine emergency and really any reason for them to be here."

Last November, a federal court preliminarily ruled that the deployment was illegal. However, an appeals court allowed the Trump administration to keep troops deployed in D.C. while it considers the administration's appeal of that ruling.

The appeals court decision is absurd. The appellate panel is fully aware that every day the case drags on is another day that D.C. residents are being subjected to a potentially illegal military occupation, and another day that taxpayers will foot the bill for a wasteful fit of presidential hubris.

The damages are compounding. The first anniversary of Trump's deployment of National Guard soldiers to D.C. should be the last.

The post Crime Is Down in D.C., but Trump's National Guard Deployment Probably Isn't the Cause appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Brickbat: Perks of the Job

2026-10-22T08:00:54Z

The California High-Speed Rail Authority's board voted 7–2 to strip CEO Ian Choudri of his authority to independently approve and manage contracts worth less than $25 million after an investigation uncovered questionable taxpayer-funded expenses by four consulting firms. An audit found that $593,000 in travel expenses lacked proper justification or violated state rules, including premium airline tickets and rideshare trips to places like a cigar lounge and an escape room. Consultants also billed taxpayers for rides to and from Choudri's home, sometimes late at night. The authority paid the four consulting firms roughly $2 million in travel costs; the inspector general reviewed about $1.15 million of that total and found $680,500 had no prior approval.

The post Brickbat: Perks of the Job appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Open Thread

2026-10-22T07:00:00Z

The post Open Thread appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Elissa Slotkin and Kara Swisher Want Democrats To Go After MAGA if They Win

2026-10-21T22:05:17Z

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss worrisome remarks from Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and journalist Kara Swisher, suggesting retribution for those in the Trump Administration if and when Democrats regain control of Congress.

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post Elissa Slotkin and Kara Swisher Want Democrats To Go After MAGA if They Win appeared first on Reason Magazine.

COVID Vaccine Skeptic Alex Berenson's Lawsuit over Termination of His Twitter Account Thrown Out

2026-10-21T21:46:52Z

From Berenson v. Gottlieb, decided yesterday by Judges Pierre Leval, Richard Wesley, and Joseph Bianco:

Plaintiff-Appellant Alex Berenson … is an independent journalist and author of a book about the COVID-19 pandemic. Berenson was an active Twitter user during the COVID-19 pandemic, posting about, inter alia, "the public policy response to COVID-19 and the vaccines." See also Appellant's Brief (describing Berenson as "a vocal critic of the public policy response to COVID-19, questioning the underlying evidentiary basis for business and school closures"). Berenson's Twitter follower count rose from approximately 7,000 in January 2020 to more than 229,000 by March 2021. Berenson alleges the existence of a conspiracy by the Biden Administration and Pfizer executives "to pressure Twitter to suspend [his] account and mute his voice as a leading COVID-19 vaccine skeptic." …

In May 2020, Twitter announced that it may append labels or warning messages to tweets related to COVID-19 misinformation. Berenson tweeted that he was "concern[ed] about what the new rules might mean for free speech on [Twitter]." In response, Twitter's Vice President of Global Communications Brandon Borrman contacted Berenson to discuss the new policy.

In December 2020, Twitter announced a new policy with respect to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, stating that it would start to "remove Tweets which advance harmful or misleading narratives about COVID-19 vaccinations." Berenson contacted Borrman, "looking for assurances that Twitter would continue to allow his reporting on COVID-19 vaccines." Borrman allegedly responded that the "points [Berenson was] raising should not be an issue at all," and that Berenson should reach out if he "r[an] into any issues."

On March 1, 2021, Twitter announced a "five-strike policy" to combat COVID-19 misinformation. Accounts that received strikes were subject to increasing levels of discipline: the first strike resulted in a warning, the second and third strikes each in a 12-hour account lock, the fourth strike in a 7-day account lock, and the fifth or successive strike in permanent suspension. The policy provided that, if a user "believe[s] that [their] account was locked or suspended in error, [the user] can submit an appeal."

The next day, Berenson spoke with Borrman, who allegedly reported that "[Berenson's] name has never come up in the discussions around these policies," and that Borrman would "try to ensure [that Berenson would be] given a heads up before an action is taken, but [that Borrman was] not always made aware of them before they're executed."

Berenson alleges that members of the Biden Administration, [Pfizer Board of Directors member and former FDA Commissioner Scott] Gottlieb, and [Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer Albert] Bourla repeatedly pressured Twitter to suspend his account, citing tweets that Twitter executives, including CEO Jack Dorsey and general counsel Vijaya Gadde, did not believe constituted violations of Twitter's five-strike policy. Berenson received strikes from Twitter in March, July, and August 2021. His Twitter account was permanently suspended with the fifth strike on August 28, 2021.

Berenson sued, but the court rejected his federal civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim:

[Section] 1985(3) imposes liability on "two or more persons … [who] conspire … for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." A plaintiff must "show that some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [lay] behind the conspirators' action." The Supreme Court has cautioned that Section 1985(3) should not be "interpreted as providing a federal remedy for 'all tortious, conspiratorial interferences with the rights of others.'" …

The Supreme Court has explained that the term "class":

unquestionably connotes something more than a group of individuals who share a desire to engage in conduct that the [Section] 1985(3) defendant disfavors. Otherwise, innumerable tort plaintiffs would be able to assert causes of action under [Section] 1985(3) by simply defining the aggrieved class as those seeking to engage in the activity the defendant has interfered with. This definitional ploy would convert the statute into the "general federal tort law" it was the very purpose of the animus requirement to avoid.

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993). Religious, gender, and racial discrimination "certainly fulfill[ ] the 'class-based animus' requirement of [Section] 1985(3)." In Keating v. Carey (2d Cir. 1983), we held that political parties are also protected groups under Section 1985(3). More recently, however, we have noted that, "after our decision in Keating, the Supreme Court [in United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 610 v. Scott (1983),] suggested that the scope of [S]ection 1985 might not extend to include discrimination against political groups except where that discrimination was based on racial animus." In any event, apart from political parties, we have made clear that protected classes under Section 1985(3) need to possess "the type of inherited or immutable characteristics sufficient to satisfy the class-based animus requirement."

Here, Berenson asserts that the relevant class here is a "class of Americans who had chosen not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, a class of which [ ] Berenson is apart [sic]." See also id. (describing the class as "Americans who either had questions about the [COVID-19] vaccine or did not want to be forced to take a shot"). The district court correctly held that Berenson's proposed class does not constitute a class for Section 1985(3) purposes. Instead, this is precisely the kind of class that the Supreme Court cautioned against in Bray—a class composed of individuals who share a desire to engage in conduct, i.e., to forgo COVID-19 vaccination, that the defendants allegedly disfavor. To the extent Berenson suggests that the class falls within the ambit of Section 1985 because it "includes a disproportionate number of African-Americans, political conservatives, and evangelical Christians," we are unpersuaded. Even if the composition of the alleged class is accepted as true, we have held that "plaintiffs cannot proceed under a disparate impact theory of liability in … claims brought pursuant to [Section 1985]."

The district court also correctly determined in the alternative that, assuming arguendo that persons not vaccinated against COVID-19 constituted a protected category, Berenson did not sufficiently allege "that the defendants acted with class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus." … In Gleason v. McBride (2d Cir. 1989), we affirmed the dismissal of a Section 1985 claim because the plaintiff "[did] not claim discrimination based on his political party affiliation," but rather "alleged only that he was discriminated against because he was a political opponent of the defendants and was extremely vocal in his opposition to [them]."

Here, Berenson alleges that he was "a highly visible obstacle to [the Biden Administration's] efforts," and that "the White House had targeted [him] specifically" as "ground zero for COVID-19 misinformation." Indeed, the FAC is replete with allegations that Berenson, and not a general class of unvaccinated Americans, was specifically targeted. The FAC also indicates that Berenson was a vocal critic of the Biden Administration. Thus, as in Gleason, Berenson's Section 1985 claim must be dismissed because he failed to plausibly allege "that the defendants acted with class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus."

And the court also rejected Berenson's tortious interference with contract claim:

Under New York law, a claim for tortious interference requires "(1) the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification; (4) actual breach of the contract; and (5) damages resulting therefrom." A claim for tortious interference will not lie if the plaintiff fails to plead an actual breach of the contract.

Here, there was a valid contract between Berenson and Twitter, i.e., Twitter's Terms of Service, which provides that Twitter "may suspend or terminate [a user's] account or cease providing [the user] with all or part of the [contractually defined] Services at any time for any or no reason." Berenson argues that the Terms of Service were modified by Twitter's five-strike policy and by Borrman's "assurances to [Berenson] regarding his posts pursuant to [the five-strike] policy." … [But] neither the five-strike policy nor Borrman's statements to Berenson modified the Terms of Service….

The relevant provision of the Terms of Service is located in the section entitled "Ending These Terms," and provides the means by which a user may terminate the agreement, i.e., "by deactivating [a user's] accounts and discontinuing [a user's] use of [Twitter's] Services," and the circumstances under which Twitter

may suspend or terminate [a user's] account … at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if [Twitter] reasonably believe[s]: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules and Policies or Periscope Community Guidelines, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; (iii) your account should be removed due to unlawful conduct[;] (iv) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or (v) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable.

The five-strike policy is clearly among the "Rules and Policies" that the Terms of Service contemplates. However, the provision makes clear that suspension or termination of an account is not limited to violations of that policy; rather, as noted above, such suspension or termination could be "at any time for any or no reason." …

We reach the same conclusion with respect to Borrman's alleged remarks, which are too vague to modify the Terms of Service. The alleged remarks are: (1) "I think you have some nuanced points that could be helpful as [sic] try to move ahead" and "[w]e're trying to make sure that factual debate finds a way through the emotion, but we're obviously not successful all the time"; (2) "The points you're raising should not be an issue at all…. The policy is designed to allow debate and discussion, but to discourage conspiracy theories, etc. Please let me know if you run into any issues"; and (3) "I will say that your name has never come up in the discussions around these policies…. If it does I will try to ensure you're given a heads up before an action is taken, but I am not always made aware of them before they're executed. If something happens, please let me know," Collectively, even drawing all inferences in Berenson's favor, these remarks suggest at most that Borrman would attempt to notify Berenson of action taken against him—not that no action would be taken against Berenson or that Berenson would necessarily receive advance notice of any action.

At bottom, Twitter's Terms of Service provided that Twitter could suspend Berenson for "any or no reason," and it did so. There was no modification of that contract and Berenson has failed to allege an actual breach of contract. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Berenson failed to state a tortious interference claim.

{Before the district court and now on appeal, Berenson relies heavily on Berenson v. Twitter, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2022), a decision in a case Berenson initiated against Twitter in December 2021. There, the district court granted in part and denied in part Twitter's motion to dismiss, holding that the five-strike policy and Borrman's "specific and direct assurances to [Berenson] regarding his posts pursuant to that policy" "amount[ed] to a modification of the [Terms of Service]" and that Berenson had plausibly alleged that "Twitter's conduct … modified its contract with [him] and then breached that contract by failing to abide by its own five-strike policy and its specific commitments set forth through [Borrman]." Id. at (emphasis in original). We find that analysis unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.}

The analysis seems correct to me.

James P. Rouhandeh, Michael S. Scheinkman, David B. Toscano, and Luca Marzorati (Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP) represent defendants.

The post COVID Vaccine Skeptic Alex Berenson's Lawsuit over Termination of His Twitter Account Thrown Out appeared first on Reason Magazine.

France's Protests Descend Into Looting and Property Destruction

2026-10-21T21:35:06Z

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss the ongoing violent protests in France.

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post France's Protests Descend Into Looting and Property Destruction appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Vivek Ramaswamy Is Defending Controversial Ad With Amy Acton's Mother

2026-10-21T22:06:23Z

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss Vivek Ramaswamy's controversial attack ad against his opponent Amy Acton in Ohio's gubernatorial race.

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in Washington, D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy Is Defending Controversial Ad With Amy Acton's Mother appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Prosecution for Threatening to Cut President's Face Off and Feed It to Stray Dogs Can Go to Jury

2026-10-21T20:00:22Z

U.S. v. Santiago, decided Monday by Judge Chad Meredith (E.D. Ky.), involves this Instagram post:

Santiago is being prosecuted for making threatening interstate communications, in two counts, "one regarding the threat to the President, and one regarding the threat to law enforcement officers." The court allowed the prosecution to go forward:

[T]he question of whether Santiago's speech was a "true threat" or political hyperbole is one that must be determined by a jury, not the Court.

Of course, "courts retain the power to remove a true-threat question from the jury's consideration … if the evidence shows that the speech was protected as a matter of law." But the implication to be drawn from the evidence here is disputed and it is not so clear-cut that the Court can decide it as a matter of law. A reasonable jury could find Santiago's statements to be true threats, and so the matter must be presented to a jury. The First Amendment does not say otherwise because it does not even apply if a jury concludes that the statements were true threats….

For most context, see the FBI agent's affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint; an excerpt:

Between January 27, 2026, and March 27, 2026, kadi_skating [allegedly one of Santiago's user ids] sent the following messages to an unidentified user: …

• kadi_skating: "im filled with political violence now." [January 8, 2026]….

• kadi_skating: "death to trump." [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skating: "death to the American nazi regime." [March 2, 2026].

• kadi_skating: "and the american people NEED to start shooting at the necks, legs, and arms of ICE agents." [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skatlng: "STUFF A GRENADE IN THEIR AHH AND BLOW IT UP." [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skating: "LETS GOOOO no one is spared all of ice is going to die by my hands [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skating: "I wanna kill n*zis bad." [March 23, 2026]

Emily K. Greenfield and James T. Chapman represent the federal government.

The post Prosecution for Threatening to Cut President's Face Off and Feed It to Stray Dogs Can Go to Jury appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A Free Speech Group at Columbia Canceled an Event About Free Speech Over 'Cornell 7' Article Controversy

2026-10-21T22:07:19Z

Questioning the prevailing narrative about the "Cornell seven" case is bound to create controversy. And at Columbia University, two student journalists drew condemnation for their views on the case from the unlikeliest of places: a college free speech group.

On October 13, Barnard junior Christina Ma and Columbia junior Nikos Mohammadi published an article called "The 'Cornell Seven' Is Really About Liberalism" in the Columbia Sundial, an independent student publication. The piece argued that the discourse surrounding the alleged rape at Cornell University infantilizes women by omitting the possibility that in a post–sexual revolution, liberal society, women may make regrettable but consensual choices.

"In the world that, for better or worse, follows from it, we cannot claim to stand for sexual freedom and then recoil in disgust when there's a possibility that a young woman simply chose to exercise it," Mohammadi and Ma wrote.

The piece also argues that the "collective frenzy" over the Cornell case has created a climate on campus that makes it "difficult to disagree with the maximalist position on what happened" the night of the alleged rape.

As Mohammadi wrote in UnHerd, the piece caused immense backlash. He said he received an onslaught of messages urging him to commit suicide and demanding that his "career and life be destroyed." But the criticism went beyond threatening DMs and comments.

The day after the article's publication, the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance (CODA) canceled an event about press freedom because the Sundial's editor in chief, Nick Baum, had been slated to speak at the event. Although Baum did not author the piece, CODA wrote in an Instagram post that the free speech group "refused" to be affiliated with the Sundial's article "in any way."

CODA also claimed that the event, ironically called "Who Gets to Tell the Story? Press Freedom and the Public Square," could not take place at a time when "many survivors in our community feel that their stories are under attack and are not being believed."

The group added that the Sundial's article "promotes rape culture and works to silence survivors of sexual assault."

The group's president, Aum Desai, told Columbia's student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator, that the group canceled the event "not in spite of, but because of [CODA's] commitment to free expression."

Columbia graduate Clayton Smith, who founded CODA in 2025, quickly commented that he was "shocked" by CODA's statements on Instagram. Smith started the organization to create a central hub for groups hosting events promoting free speech and open discourse, including the Sundial and Columbia's Heterodox Academy chapter.

He tells Reason that CODA's rationale for canceling the event was "ironic" and "hypocritical," and he believes the group should have collaborated with the Sundial if there were legitimate safety concerns at the event. He says he was particularly disturbed by the group's condemnation of the article and CODA's claim that it promotes "rape culture."

"They don't argue or explain how it works to silence survivors of sexual assault. It is a baseless slander that they use to condemn the article because it promoted an opinion they do not like," Smith says.

Smith says he spoke to Desai on the phone after CODA posted the statements, and Desai tried to reassure him that CODA would uphold the principle of free speech. But Smith says he did not leave the phone call feeling "very confident at all" in Desai's commitment.

Desai did not respond to Reason's requests for comment.

CODA faculty adviser and Columbia Business School professor emeritus Eli Noam was traveling in China during the fallout from the Sundial article and was not involved in CODA's decision.

After speaking with members of both CODA and the Sundial, Noam tells Reason that he thinks CODA "made some proper decisions, some correct decisions, and some mistakes."

"I think we're dealing here with…a group of college students who kind of were confronted with a crisis at 2 a.m.," Noam says. "And kind of [made] some judgments that they now regret, and they do."

He tells Reason that it was not "unreasonable to assume there would be a disruption" at the event, given the climate at Columbia and "about this rape allegation." He says the group suddenly "had an event where they needed college security" and could not organize in time. CODA, Noam says, is not yet recognized by the university, and he thinks the group was likely fearful of jeopardizing its recognition.

Still, Noam says CODA's statements condemning the article were "unreasonable," and it was "disappointing that they kind of lost their nerve here."

Although he was not involved in planning the panel, Mohammadi says, to his knowledge, there were no credible threats of violence to the panel. He understood there may have been "disgruntled students" and an "environment CODA did not want to deal with." But instead of simply canceling the event or working with the Sundial to find a solution, Mohammadi says CODA overstepped by condemning the Sundial piece.

James Applegate, an astronomy professor who serves on Columbia's Academic Freedom Council (CAFC) alongside Noam, tells Reason that he disagreed with CODA's decision to cancel the event.

Applegate tells Reason he was considering attending the event, and he was "rather surprised and disappointed" when it was canceled.

He recalled that when he was a professor in 2000, he objected to changes to the school's sexual misconduct policy on the University Senate floor. He says his statements were "similar to what was said in the Sundial article" and there was a "level of emotion in this debate."

"Nonetheless, we had the debate. I was in it, and the degree to which it was civil is shocking when you look at where we are now. And it's sad."

Applegate said he does not condemn CODA, however, "for the simple reason that the atmosphere on college campuses and on the left wing of politics in general in the United States is quite vicious."

CODA's honorary faculty fellow John McWhorter tells Reason he interpreted CODA's statement as "saying that an event about who gets to tell the story is untenable when or if a critical mass of people with such stories don't even feel comfortable telling them— i.e.being a participant in the event." He added, "I imagine some might think of that as cutting the salami a little thin, but then I highly suspect that Desai is equally worried about the event becoming a physical melee of some kind. In that, let's face it, he is hardly unreasonable."

Still, McWhorter said that he would have chosen to have the event himself, "especially as in the likely case that some people did talk about their experiences without any particular repercussions, it may have made the more reluctant people less apprehensive about doing so in the future."

According to Mohammadi, as of Tuesday, the Sundial, College Republicans, Platypus Affiliated Society at Columbia (which discusses leftist thought and history), and Columbia's Heterodox Academy chapter have left CODA.

CODA was not the only group to condemn the Sundial's piece. On October 14, the Columbia Political Review's editorial board wrote that Mohammadi and Ma's piece "violates standards of integrity" and "perpetuates a culture of campus violence, rape, and assault." The editorial board of the Columbia Political Review, which purports to publish "multipartisan political discourse," stated that it would refuse to publish "any article that upholds or recreates cultures and systems of rape, sexual assault, or violence" and it urged "all campus publications to do the same."

And on Monday, Columbia's main newspaper, the Spectator, published a staff editorial accusing the Sundial of violating journalistic ethics by "its page to disparage survivors of sexual violence."

Mohammadi tells Reason the piece underwent "far more editorial scrutiny than any other piece" the Sundial had published given the sensitive nature of the topic.

Free speech student organizations are necessary on Columbia's campus, especially as the school's free speech climate continues to crumble; it recently received a failing grade from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. And while upholding free speech principles may have become more fashionable among those resisting the Trump administration's pressures on academic freedom or those defending pro-Palestinian speech, it is clear that some topics remain taboo in the public square. College is supposed to be a place where students debate controversial topics, form their own beliefs and opinions, and learn from mistakes. Hopefully, the students who demanded condemnation instead of debate will be forgiven for their perversion of free speech ideals, and they will learn to afford such grace and open-mindedness to classmates with whom they disagree.

The post A Free Speech Group at Columbia Canceled an Event About Free Speech Over 'Cornell 7' Article Controversy appeared first on Reason Magazine.

"The Three Words That Explain American Government: 'Right to Sue,'" by Stanford Law Prof. Diego Zambrano

2026-10-21T22:09:56Z

I read and much enjoyed—and highly recommend—my Stanford colleague Diego Zambrano's book, How Americans Enforce the Law. He was kind enough to write up for us this post that captures the core of his argument, and I'm delighted to pass it along (though I encourage people to read the whole book):

The headlines are full of stories about a federal government retreating from enforcement. Agencies are dropping investigations, abandoning regulations, shrinking staffs and changing enforcement priorities. One week, the EEOC drops discrimination cases. The next week, the SEC and CFPB wind down investigations into securities fraud and wrongdoing affecting consumers. Critics fear that the Department of Justice's antitrust division will overlook mergers when it is convenient for the administration. And the DOJ has abruptly reduced enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Facing these changes, Americans might worry that a wide range of laws will go unenforced.

But that concern misses something unique about the American system of government. We have never relied only on bureaucrats to enforce our laws.

All the way back to the colonial period, American legislators have repeatedly done something unusual: they have given ordinary people the right to sue alongside government officials. In almost every regulatory area that most Americans care about—be it regulation of wages and hours, environmental pollution, consumer protection, or securities fraud—statutes allow both government officials and private parties to file suit to enforce the law. All of this happens through little-known provisions called "private rights of action," which is just a technical name for a right to sue. Thousands of these provisions build a second enforcement system alongside the bureaucracy, turning employees, consumers, competitors and their lawyers into co-enforcers of public law.

This system of private enforcement of the law is highly unusual. In much of the rest of the world, whenever a government faces a regulatory problem, it typically empowers government officials and bureaucrats to police legal violations. In France, Germany, Japan, and even the UK, legislators are far less likely to let anyone sue over, say, environmental pollution or employment discrimination.

Consider the case of oil spills. In 1989, the United States faced the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the pristine waters of Alaska. Millions of gallons of oil laid waste to coasts, waters, and fisheries for hundreds of miles. What most Americans don't know is that a decade later, France also faced a catastrophic oil spill, caused by a ship called the Erika. So how did governments react? In the United States, private plaintiffs sued Exxon directly under existing tort and maritime law, eventually winning substantial damages. Congress, meanwhile, enacted a statute called the Oil Pollution Act with a new right-to-sue those responsible for oil spills. By contrast, in France, the oil spill led primarily to a major criminal prosecution and, eventually, to new national and European regulatory measures (including a new bureaucracy called the European Maritime Safety Agency). When France finally adopted a right to sue in 2016, it paled in comparison to the American version.

Why is the United States so different? Part of the answer, as I argue in a new book, is that Americans have always done this. Back in the colonial period, state legislatures adopted what they called "penal statutes," that empowered any person to enforce regulatory statutes and collect a bounty. So when Massachusetts wanted to regulate the storage of gunpowder, it allowed private informers to sue neighbors who stored it improperly. And this model applied across many areas of colonial life: alcohol consumption, trade, taxation, public morals, church attendance, and more. The Founders used the same tool across the board: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison co-wrote Virginia statutes full of penal statutes, and John Adams handled these suits routinely as a colonial lawyer.

The key feature of this system is that even though private parties file suit for their own aims—the employee wants their full wages paid or the consumer wants a refund for a shoddy product—they inevitably enforce the law. And those lawsuits benefit everyone else because employers and manufacturers may change their behavior with respect to other employees and consumers. In that sense, every single plaintiff is a little bureaucrat or, as some courts call them, a "private attorney general."

This system has the added benefit of reducing political disruptions in enforcement. Even though any single administration can change the enforcement priorities of the EEOC, SEC, CFPB, or Department of Justice, the president cannot control thousands of lawyers and their clients. Private enforcement, then, makes enforcement less dependent on what the bureaucracy and president want.

Right. So you might think that when the bureaucracy won't pursue wrongdoing, the obvious solution should always be new rights to sue. Indeed, many news stories decrying a lack of government enforcement immediately call for more private lawsuits.

But there's a problem with that solution. Private enforcement is not tailor-made for every regulatory area. It makes the most sense to empower private parties when the bureaucracy is truly faulty, under-resourced, politically vulnerable, or likely to be captured by regulated entities. When this isn't the case, private enforcement can cause more problems than it solves.

Consider, then, the enormous problems that rights to sue pose in the environmental context and in the construction of housing and infrastructure. There, broad rights to challenge government approvals can let private parties oppose the construction of housing, mass transit, green energy, and other projects. Examples of ruinous lawsuits abound. Neighbors in a Maryland suburb—backed for years by a nearby country club—sued to delay the Purple Line light-rail project over concerns for a microscopic organism, while the Sierra Club sued to stop a major Mojave solar energy project over the potential impact to a desert turtle. So even if a city government has approved a project that might benefit thousands of people, a single crank can use a right-to-sue to stop the project. In these settings, rights to sue have contributed to delays and increased costs of housing and infrastructure.

We need a careful approach to rights to sue. Yes, we need more of them in some areas. Especially if the government won't enforce anti-corruption or consumer protection statutes. And yes, in employment law, securities, and antitrust, private enforcement often makes a lot of sense. But this is not necessarily the case in environmental law and construction. There, we need better bureaucracies, not thousands of people with the ability to oppose construction projects for any number of reasons.

When the bureaucracy retreats, Americans should rest assured that private parties will still enforce the law. But that power to enforce the law should be given carefully.

The post "The Three Words That Explain American Government: 'Right to Sue,'" by Stanford Law Prof. Diego Zambrano appeared first on Reason Magazine.

My Jury Duty Was a Master Class in Government Inefficiency

2026-10-21T19:10:30Z

I shouldn't get so angry. It isn't healthy.

Last week, New York state summoned me to jury duty.

I went, of course. It's the law, and my duty.

A jury may protect the innocent from government abuse. Ordinary citizens, not officials, decide if you are guilty.

But doing our patriotic duty shouldn't mean surrendering hours of our lives to bureaucratic indifference. Serving justice is important. Sitting around doing nothing isn't.

During my 50 years consumer reporting, I've watched greedy capitalists constantly make improvements and find better ways to do things. They use computers, adjust hours, reduce wait times.

If they don't, we consumers quickly switch to competitors who will.

But government bureaucracies—courts, the DMV, the passport office—have no competitors. So they don't try very hard.

Government is force.

My summons arrived on paper, in the mail.

Most businesses now communicate with customers instantly, by text or email. Airlines send boarding passes to our phones. Doctors text reminders. Restaurants send notifications when our table is ready.

But government sends paper.

We summoned jurors meekly arrive at the courthouse and wait. And wait.

I'm old; it's important I hydrate. At least government provides a water cooler and a drinking fountain. Oh, damn, neither works.

We sit another hour.

Eventually, a bored clerk drones through long instructions on how fill out a form. Printed instructions would be better—a video would be much better. But this is government, and government bureaucracies have little incentive to innovate.

Finally, clerks choose 80 of us to be considered for a criminal trial. "Wait in the hall," we're told.

We wait.

Then they tell us, "Go across the street to another building, and wait there."

We go.

After an hour, we're admitted into a courtroom, where another bureaucrat tells us, "Come back Monday."

Monday! This was the Thursday before. Imagine an airline telling 80 passengers, "Welcome to the airport. Your flight is in five days. Come back then."

No airline would survive doing that.

But courts don't have competition.

When court finally starts, a stenographer types away, recording what people say. Computers today transcribe speech instantly, accurately, at almost no cost. But New York taxpayers still pay someone to type every word.

Amazon experiments with faster delivery. Supermarkets install self-checkout machines. Banks let us deposit checks just by photographing them with our phones.

Capitalism protects your time while bureaucrats waste it.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explained why by pointing out there are four ways to spend money:

No. 1: Spend your money on yourself. Then you're very careful about both cost and quality.

No. 2: Spend your own money on someone else. You're careful about the cost, but don't care as much about the quality.

No. 3: Spend someone else's money on yourself. You care less about cost, but still care about quality.

No. 4: Spend someone else's money on someone else. You don't care about cost OR quality.

That's what government does.

Some court workers work hard, and many want to help people. But they're stuck in a system where saving people's time brings them no rewards.

In my case, 80 prospective jurors sat around for at least six hours, just waiting—that's 12 40-hour work weeks lost. Some had to hire babysitters, reschedule doctor's appointments, tell their bosses they'll try to make up the work at night. Some lost income. Some missed opportunities.

For just one case. Multiply that by thousands of cases: countless hours of human progress vanish.

Why not stagger arrival times? Let jurors wait at home until needed? Use text messages to call people in?

Because innovation takes effort. So courts don't bother.

They act as if wasting our time is free. It's not.

The post My Jury Duty Was a Master Class in Government Inefficiency appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Texas School Police Referred Tens of Thousands of Children to Prosecutors for Minor Misbehavior

2026-10-21T18:55:54Z

School resource officers (SROs) in Texas referred tens of thousands of elementary and middle schoolers for prosecution for relatively minor misconduct over the last decade, a news investigation found.

An analysis by The New York Times and the San Antonio Express-News reported that, as the number of SROs in Texas grew, children in Texas ages 10 to 13 were referred to prosecution for misbehaving in school more than 47,000 times since 2014. A referral doesn't necessarily result in charges being filed, but each one represents a minor being taken into police custody and put in contact with the criminal justice system, which can have long-lasting educational, emotional, and financial impacts for students and their families.

"Most of the students were accused of minor offenses, like making threats, using cannabis vapes or lashing out at classmates or teachers," the papers reported. "Few caused serious physical harm."

Among the examples cited by the Times and Express-News were an 11-year-old who bumped into a school counselor, a 10-year-old who said he saw someone on campus with a weapon, and a 10-year-old who kicked an assistant principal after his cellphone was taken away.

In one case, a 12-year-old girl who refused to go to the principal's office was handcuffed, arrested, and driven to the school police headquarters. "When she would not put her hand on a fingerprint machine, officers twisted her opposite arm behind her back until she screamed and complied, according to body camera footage," the outlets reported.

The analysis found that referrals of children 10 to 13 increased by a greater percentage than referrals of older students. (Children under 10 cannot be prosecuted under Texas law; many other states don't set a minimum age for delinquency.)

The two outlets published another joint investigation in May on how SROs in Texas schools have used heavy-handed tactics, including Tasers and pepper spray, against students over seemingly minor misconduct.

The findings mirror other recent studies. A report published in July by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa found that, while SROs were placed in Iowa schools to keep students safe from violence, the threat they most commonly dealt with was illicit vaping.

The number of police in schools nationally dramatically increased in recent years, growing by 23 percent at high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools between 2018 and 2021, largely under the justification of stopping mass shootings and handling violent situations.

Organizations like the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) say that carefully selected, well-trained officers act as a filter and decrease arrests by building strong relationships within the school with staff and students.

Civil liberties groups and disability advocates have long argued that increases in school police and zero-tolerance policies for petty disturbances have fueled the "school-to-prison" pipeline and led to disproportionate enforcement against minorities and students with disabilities. Those groups have been aided by viral news stories of police arresting and assaulting school children.

Following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and national calls for police reform, several major school districts across the country ended their SRO programs.

However, several states that experienced horrific school shootings, like Florida and Texas, moved in the opposite direction, passing laws that required police officers or armed guardians in public schools.

A 2020 Reason investigation described how Florida schools had become a high-stakes experiment in policing after Florida more than doubled the number of SROs across the state following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. A study published in 2020 found that after the increase, the number of Florida school arrests—which had been declining for years—suddenly started to rise. There was also a sharp increase in the use of physical restraint against students.

A 2021 working paper by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which billed itself as the broadest and most rigorous examination at the school level of how SROs impact student outcomes, found that while SROs "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools," they did not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.

Another study by researchers at the University of Maryland and the firm Westat, who studied several dozen middle and high schools in California, found that increasing the number of SROs led to both immediate and persistent increases in the number of drug and weapon offenses and the number of suspensions and expulsions of students.

The post Texas School Police Referred Tens of Thousands of Children to Prosecutors for Minor Misbehavior appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Skrmetti, Mahmoud, and B.P.J v. Bostock and Kingdom

2026-10-21T20:29:36Z

This year, the Bureau of Prison determined that "sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria." The lower court enjoined this policy, and the Solicitor General sought an emergency stay. Today the Supreme Court denied a stay in Trump v. Kingdom by a 7-2 vote. Justices Thomas and Alito noted they would have granted the application, though there was no written opinion.

I have some thoughts.

First, just yesterday Justice Kagan noted that the Trump appointees rule against President Trump as proof that they are not hacks. And she surely knew this case would come down as further proof of this point. Kagan's point seems to be that ruling against the President that appoints you makes you a fair justice. That premise is only true if in fact that law does not support the appointing President's policy. If a Justice simply rules against the President who appoints him for the sake of optics, then the Justice is no longer a judge.

Justice Alito made this point well in his new book, summarized in the Wall Street Journal.

Insecure originalists may worry that they are subconsciously engaging in "judicial activism" in the service of their own policy preferences. As a result, they may welcome occasions when their originalist analysis leads to results they dislike. They experience a brief catharsis, a release of their anxiety about succumbing to temptation.

Twenty-first-century originalists should shed this insecure mindset.

I wonder if Justice Alito thinks that Justice Scalia's constant praise of his vote in Texas v. Johnson was evidence of this "catharsis." Justice Kavanaugh used to praise the Nixon appointees who ruled against Nixon in the Watergate Tapes case. That premise reinforces the wrong image. I've come to believe that United States v. Nixon was a travesty, and the Justices who joined that were caught up in the Watergate swamp fever. The decision has not held up well over the past five decades.

Let's stop praising how often the Trump appointees rule against Trump. The more useful metric, in my view, is when the Court's two most conservative members (Thomas and Alito) are alone in dissent. I updated my wall of receipts in July 2026 as a recent accounting.

Second, how do we reconcile Mahmoud, B.P.J., and Skrmetti on the one hand and Bostock and Kingdom on the other? For sure, all of these cases presented different legal issues. Mahmoud was a Free Exercise challenge, Skrmetti presented an Equal Protection issue, B.P.J. was about Title IX, Bostock was an interpretation of Title VII, and Kingdom was an APA challenge on the interim orders docket. Yet all of these cases were really about transgender rights. Back in April I wrote that the transgender tide was turning. Was I wrong? Why did all of the recent cases turn out one way but Kingdom turns out the other?

Well, the Court is certainly concerned about transitioning children. They upheld bans on gender transition surgeries in Skrmetti. They required opt-outs from transgender-related indoctrination in Maryland public schools. (Had the story books been only about gay marriage, I don't know that the case would have come out the same way.) The Justices allowed the exclusion of biologically male athletes from female sports. I could add to that list Mirabelli v. Bonta, which prohibited schools from secretly transitioning children.

It's possible that Justice Gorsuch simply saw the light after Bostock, but maybe there is another explanation: he cares more about children than he cares about transgender rights. So his equities tilted to the right. But in a case where adults seek this treatment, Gorsuch cut the other way. Moreover, when those consenting adults are prisoners, Justice Gorsuch's equities are far clearer. For a libertarian, how could the carceral state deny this treatment to incarcerated persons who can't go elsewhere to get it?

Third, I'm struggling with Justice Kavanaugh's position here. He had a free vote, as the split was 7-2. He could have at least written a separate opinion explaining why relief was not appropriate here, but when the case returns on the merits, the outcome may be different. He does that sort of thing all the time in far less controversial cases. But here, we only have the sound of silence. I think he is signaling the government loses on the merits here. Maybe he suspects Trump will be out of office by the time this case returns to the Court, and the policy will be abandoned.

Fourth, I'm sure Justice Barrett figured out some procedural reason why the federal government must remove healthy reproductive organs from prisoners. That is, unless she agrees with the Respondent's arguments that BOP's position is "pretextual and [was] reverse-engineered to implement" President Trump's order. So we're back to pretext, and trying to divine the President's real motivations. Trump v. Cook established that Trump does not get the presumption of regularity. Barrett dissented in that case, through she may not disagree with the broader premise.

Fifth, the application was filed on September 28, briefing concluded on October 9, and the order was issued on October 21. What took so long if this was a straight-up denial without any writings? I suspect that Justices Alito and Thomas were hopeful they could scrounge more votes but could not. Maybe they even circulated a dissent but withdrew it. Something behind the scenes happened here. If only we knew what happened? Thankfully reporters at CNN and the New York Times are no longer able to otbain leaks. The best they can do is ask KBJ's friends for comments and interview the Chief's neighbors in Maine.

The post Skrmetti, Mahmoud, and B.P.J v. Bostock and Kingdom appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Feds Took $460,000 From This Arizona Convenience Store Owner and Never Explained Why

2026-10-21T22:07:54Z

On a Tuesday morning in February 2025, federal agents descended upon Ayala's Mini Market, a convenience store in Glendale, Arizona, that offered check cashing, money transfer, shipping, and cellphone repair services along with standard items such as groceries, snacks, sodas, and cigarettes. The agents, who worked for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), seized three computers, five cellphones, and business records, plus about $460,000 in cash and checks. They did not say why.

Twenty months later, the store's owner, Mario Ayala, still has not received a definitive answer to that question. Nor has the government told him what it plans to do with his property or how he can try to get it back. That Kafkaesque situation is unconstitutional, Ayala's lawyers at the Institute for Justice argue in a motion and memorandum they filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The motion seeks the return of the property seized from Ayala's business, saying there is no legitimate reason for the government to keep it.

"The government can't take your stuff, disappear, and then never explain itself," says Institute for Justice attorney Betsy Sanz. "For over a year and a half, the government has been holding Mario's money and property. This prolonged seizure violates the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The government cannot hold onto your property indefinitely without explanation so it can eventually take it permanently using civil forfeiture."

The raid on Ayala's store happened while he was visiting his ailing father in Mexico, who died a couple of months later. After Ayala's wife and son called to tell him what had happened, he rushed back to Arizona, where he tried to figure out why his business had been targeted by the IRS and the DHS. That was harder than you might think.

Ayala "has heard nothing from the government since they raided his business and seized his property," Sanz and her colleagues note in their memorandum. When the agents left, they told Ayala's son that "the business would receive a letter within thirty days," the memorandum says, but "no letter came," and the government "has not told Mario why it took his property or why it refuses to return it."

The agents left a one-page inventory of the property they took, including the computers, cellphones (two of which belonged to Ayala's customers), documents, and currency, although it did not specify the amount of money. They also left the first page of a warrant signed by a federal magistrate judge, which contained no information about the crime they were investigating or the property they were authorized to seize. It referred to attachments that might have clarified those points, but the attachments were missing.

Ayala still has not seen those attachments. But on the same day the agents raided his store, they also searched 18 other businesses in the Phoenix area, all of which offered money services. Judging from the warrants served on three of those other businesses, which were signed by the same magistrate judge at the same time on the same day as the warrant for Ayala's Mini Market, the legal justification for the searches was suspected violations of 31 USC 5324, which makes it a felony to "structure" a financial transaction with the intent of "evading" federal reporting requirements.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires that financial institutions report cash transactions involving more than $10,000 to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Although that mandate is aimed at money laundering, someone can be guilty of structuring even without evidence of any other crime if he deliberately tries to avoid triggering a FinCEN report by breaking up a transaction into amounts below the threshold. As far as Ayala can tell, the search of his store was based on nothing more than suspicion of structuring.

If so, Ayala's lawyers argue, the IRS agents who participated in the raid violated a 2019 federal law that bars the agency from seizing money when structuring is the only suspected crime. Congress passed that law in response to IRS forfeiture abuses highlighted by the Institute for Justice. "For the IRS to legally seize property based on a structuring offense, it must also have an added suspicion of some other criminal act," Sanz et al. note. "Yet the IRS seized Mario's property, apparently on the sole suspicion of a structuring violation."

That is not the only legal problem with the seizure. Assuming the government plans to seek forfeiture of Ayala's money based on an alleged connection to criminal activity, it missed a crucial deadline. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) requires the federal government to notify property owners of attempted forfeitures within 60 days of the seizure. That deadline passed a year and a half ago, and Ayala still has received no such notice.

"This notice is crucial because it informs a property owner that the government intends to forfeit his property and triggers his ability to respond by filing a claim or administrative petition," Ayala's lawyers note. If the government fails to meet that requirement, CAFRA says, it "shall return the property."

The government can seek extensions of the CAFRA deadline "only if there is reason to believe that notice may have an adverse result," such as "endangering the life or physical safety of an individual," "flight from prosecution," "destruction of or tampering with evidence," "intimidation of potential witnesses," or "otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial." None of those conditions applies in this case, Sanz et al. say, and their client "is unaware of the government seeking any such extension here."

Another possible rationale for keeping Ayala's property is that the government needs it as evidence in a criminal investigation. But his lawyers argue that the seized items "have no independent evidentiary value."

The government "cannot claim that it is holding the cash as evidence of the suspected structuring offense, because the government—in the usual course—does not continue to hold the physical cash it seizes but rather promptly deposits it," the memorandum says. "To prove the suspected offense here, the government would present evidence documenting the amounts and frequency of transactions and evidence that the defendant intentionally evaded reporting requirements. No fact the government must prove to establish a structuring offense becomes more or less provable by the government's continued possession of Mario's money."

Although "the checks and business documents that the government seized from Mario may at first have had some evidentiary value," Sanz et al. say, it could have long since returned the originals and kept copies. As for the computers and cellphones, "the government has had ample time to extract and copy" any relevant information.

While the benefits of keeping Ayala's property seem highly dubious, the cost to him has been severe. The seizure of the checks and currency wreaked havoc with his business model, which relies on money received for transfers to cash checks, which in turn are scanned and used to pay the companies that handle the transfers.

"The search and seizure of Mario's property upended his business," the memorandum says. "He had to keep his business closed until March 1, 2025, to replace the seized computers and to figure out how they could keep the business open. He took $50,000 of his own money out of the bank so that he could keep cashing customers' checks. When that ran out, the business had to stop cashing checks for a long time, losing customers."

Ayala "also had to come up with $112,097.20 to pay the money transmitters to cover the balance that had accrued while he was away," his lawyers add. "Since all the cash and cashed-but-unscanned checks had been seized, Mario needed to pay this money to the transmitters on his own. Though he did ultimately pay back all the money transmitters over the following month, the consequences of the raid damaged Mario's business relationship with one of the money transmitters he had formerly worked with, InterMex. Today, the business can no longer offer InterMex as an option for money transfers."

Ayala's business "is now finally stable, but it is still not doing as well as it was before the raid," Sanz et al. say. "Mario has changed the way he runs his business because of the raid. He now scans every customer's cashed check to send it to the money transmitters as soon as it is cashed, rather than collecting [checks] and scanning them together as they previously did. He constantly worries that his business will be targeted again."

In the 20 months since the raid, the government has not filed a forfeiture action or even notified Ayala that it intends to do so. Nor has it filed any criminal charges related to the seizure, as far as Ayala knows. "The government has no lawful reason to retain
Mario's property," his lawyers say, "and this Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to order its return."

The motion relies on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which says "a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which includes Arizona, has adopted four criteria for granting such a motion: whether the government "displayed a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the movant," whether "the movant has an individual interest in and need for the property he wants returned," whether "the movant would be irreparably injured by denying return of the property," and whether "the movant has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance."

All of those factors count in Ayala's favor, Sanz et al. argue. Ayala's interest in the property and the injury he is suffering are clear, as is the absence of any other remedy. As for the first criterion, "the government can neither forfeit Mario's property nor justify holding it as evidence, so its continued retention is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the memorandum says. "And its nearly 20 months of silence, without any notice or any forum in which to contest the seizure, offends due process. At every turn, the government has 'callous[ly] disregarded' Mario's constitutional rights."

Ayala immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1991 and struggled for years to make a go of his business, which was successful enough at the time of the raid that he planned to open a new location devoted to cellphone repair. That plan is now on hold because of the financial difficulties caused by the seizure.

"This business is my American Dream, and the government took years of my hard work without telling me what I did," Ayala says. "This raid hurt me and my family. I hope this lawsuit gets my money back and helps make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else."

The post The Feds Took $460,000 From This Arizona Convenience Store Owner and Never Explained Why appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Arizona Man Awarded $67,500 on Behalf of Aborted Embryo

2026-10-21T22:08:30Z

An Arizona abortion clinic that didn't tell a pregnant woman about the physical characteristics of her 8-week-old embryo before prescribing abortion pills has been found liable in a case brought by the ex-husband of the pregnant woman, who didn't want her to get an abortion.

The ex-husband, Mario Villegas, was awarded $67,500 in a civil lawsuit accusing the clinic of violating an informed consent law that an Arizona court declared unconstitutional earlier this year.

'A Dangerous Precedent'

The Lawyering Project, which represented the doctor and clinic being sued by Villegas, had warned that the case could "establish a dangerous precedent in Arizona concerning embryonic personhood and chill the provision of abortion care."

"A pre-viability embryo or fetus is not a person," says its website in a summary of the case, "and a physician cannot be subject to a wrongful death action for providing high-quality abortion care to a patient who wants an abortion."

In an August 2024 order, Judge Bryan B. Chambers of the Arizona Superior Court in Gila County agreed with the defendants that Arizona's wrongful death statute does not, as written, apply to the death of embryos. The court is "unwilling to expand the common law definition of 'person' as applied to the wrongful death statute to include all unborn children whether viable outside the womb or not," Chambers wrote.

But that doesn't mean he tossed Villegas' lawsuit entirely. And in a judgement released July 22 but largely unnoticed until this week, Chambers wound up holding that Villegas is entitled to $5,000 in statutory damages and $62,500 "in compensatory damages for his psychological, emotional, and physical injuries."

No one in the case alleges that Villegas' ex-wife—referred to in court documents as M.S.V.—was tricked, coerced, or generally uninformed about the abortion. The case turns on technicalities and Arizona's onerous, biased (and now barred) requirements for what abortion doctors must tell patients in order to obtain informed consent.

'Deprived of the love….of his child'

M.S.V's abortion took place in July 2018, when she was around eight weeks pregnant. At the Camelback Family Planning clinic in Phoenix, she was provided with information at least 24 hours before she could come back for the abortion pills, and she signed various consent forms, including one affirming that she was "comfortable with [her] decision to terminate this pregnancy," according to ProPublica.

Around two years later, in July 2020, Villegas—now divorced from M.S.V.—sued the clinic and physician Gabrielle J. Goodrick, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. Villegas "has been deprived of the love, affection, comfort, and companionship of his child," his initial complaint stated. He "has been deprived of his constitutionally protected right to parent Baby Villegas."

Villegas sought to have himself appointed the personal representative of the estate of the aborted embryo, and a probate judge agreed.

In an amended complaint, Villegas added that "the estate has been deprived of the net income Baby Villegas would have earned during her lifetime" and sought damages for that, too. (Villegas took the liberty of assuming the embryo was a girl, even though the abortion would have been too early in the pregnancy to tell.)

"Across the U.S., people have sued for negligence in the death of a fetus or embryo in cases where a pregnant person has been killed in a car crash or a pregnancy was lost because of alleged wrongdoing by a physician," noted ProPublica in a 2022 article about the case. "But a court action claiming the wrongful death of an aborted embryo or fetus is a more novel strategy, legal experts said."

Informed Consent or Compelled Speech?

Ultimately, the case came down to Arizona's informed consent law, not fetal personhood.

In the amended complaint, Villegas argued that the clinic had violated Arizona law on informed consent for abortion.

That law—declared unconstitutional in February 2026—said that doctors must obtain informed consent before performing abortions (which is normal) and then added that this consent only counts if clinics obtain it in highly particular (and medically unnecessary) way and tack on a lot of loaded language and anti-abortion rhetoric.

It says that "at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician" must inform a patient woman "orally and in person" about topics such as "alternatives to the procedure or treatment" and "the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed." Doctors were also required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that if she went through with the pregnancy, various forms of assistance may be available.

Villegas alleged that even though his wife technically consented to the abortion, it didn't count because the information wasn't provided by the same doctor who prescribed her the pills, and because doctors didn't warn her about the potential "loss of the 'maternal-fetal' attachment bond inherent in birthing a child" and didn't explain alternatives to abortion or the 8-week-old embryo's physical characteristics.

He also complained that the printed form M.S.V. was given "changed the statutory term 'the probable gestational age of the unborn child' to 'the probable gestational age of the pregnancy,' which misstates Arizona's legislative determination that every pregnant woman is carrying a human child."

M.S.V. testified in court "that nothing would have changed her mind about obtaining the abortion," as Chambers put it in his judgement. And no one alleges that the clinic simply failed to discuss some risks and other relevant information with her before the procedure. It simply failed to use the loaded language preferred by the state.

But "the statute does not require proof that M.S.V. would have made a different decision had she been fully informed," wrote Chambers in his judgement. And even if some of the rules of informed consent were followed, "nothing in [Arizona law] suggests that substantial compliance with the consent provisions is all that is necessary."

Fortunately, the informed consent law at the heart of this case has been struck down, so future doctors don't have to worry about being sued for failing to say "unborn child."

But there's still something chilling about the way all this played out. M.S.V. had argued to court that she was tricked into pregnancy—she thought her ex-husband "was fixed," because he'd had a vasectomy, though it was since reversed. Chambers said this did not negate her consent to sex with him, since M.S.V. "was not deceived about the nature of the act. At most, she was deceived about a potential consequence (pregnancy risk)."

In M.S.V.'s telling, she did not exactly give informed consent to the sex that led to pregnancy, but she did give informed consent to the abortion procedure. In neither situation, however, do M.S.V.'s claims about her own consent seem to have mattered much at all.

In the News

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shows "significant weakness" when it comes to protecting passenger data, according to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

A TSA authentication vendor "was able to access and extract sensitive passenger information, including driver's license and passport images, during system troubleshooting and enhancements, without TSA's knowledge," the report says. More:

TSA lacked clear policies, did not track when this data was extracted, could not verify that extracted information was properly deleted, and did not notify passengers when their biometric and biographic information may have been stored. As a result, although passenger information was generally protected during routine operations, weaknesses in vendor oversight created a risk that sensitive personal information could be retained or exposed.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation comments:

As the OIG's audit underscores, this technology presents privacy risks associated with unsecured data, unauthorized access, and data breaches. The government's use of this technology also creates a mass surveillance system and facilitates the creation of warrantless biometric records for unconsenting parties.

[…] Given that facial recognition technology is prone to mistakes, combined with the OIG's audit revealing significant privacy weaknesses, it is imperative that travelers remember that opting out is possible. TSA's own website emphasizes that travelers who wish to decline to have their photo taken for facial comparison can do so without any delay, disruption, or recourse.

More Sex & Tech

• You could make a full-time beat out of covering cops' misuse of Flock cameras these days. The latest: "A former Joliet police lieutenant is now facing felony charges for misusing the city's Flock camera system," per CBS News. And, in Sharonville, Ohio, "a police lieutenant was indicted Tuesday after he allegedly used Flock camera systems…29 times between Dec. 19, 2024, and April 20, 2026, to track a person's whereabouts" for personal reasons, Fox 10 reports.

• Airbnb says hosts can't make you wash and dry your own dishes anymore:

I just got an email from Airbnb laying out new ground rules for what hosts can demand of guests, and THANK GOD.

At my last Airbnb, I had to strip the beds, wash every dish, clean the kitchen, haul the trash out to the road, and there was still a $100 cleaning fee! https://t.co/tfQGqQKsRo

— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) October 20, 2026

• Another case challenging the use of Flock cameras to get convictions. In Texas, Charles Brownlee—sentenced to 60 years in prison for armed robbery—is asking a federal appeals court to throw out his conviction, "arguing that the AI-powered camera system gives law enforcement more surveillance power than the Constitution allows," per The Texas Tribune.

• A California law that takes effect in 2027 "will require large companies to make a good-faith effort to link customers to a human by phone within 15 minutes," notes The San Francisco Standard. "But it has a carveout for companies that never offered phone support in the first place. It remains to be seen whether the legislation will hold any sway over the AI firms leading the charge to replace human agents."

• Jacob Sullum delves into a convoluted lawsuit filed against Students for Life by a Texas woman who opposes a Texas anti-abortion law.

• In the latest incident to blur the line between the FBI catching criminals and creating them, an FBI task force catfished a high school maintenance worker using an AI-generated image of a 15-year-old, then used Clearview AI facial recognition tools to identify him and Flock to track his car.

The post Arizona Man Awarded $67,500 on Behalf of Aborted Embryo appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Nuclear Power Now Has Bipartisan Support

2026-10-21T17:35:08Z

Nuclear power has historically been a divisive issue: During the Cold War, an entire generation feared annihilation at the hands of the same basic technology that some want to use to power their homes.

That's unfortunate, because nuclear energy has considerable benefits—a reliable source of power with very few greenhouse gas emissions—with increasingly lower risks.

Thankfully, it seems that message is catching on with people from both major political parties.

"About six-in-ten U.S. adults now say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity," Pew Research reported in October 2025. "That's up from 43% in 2020, driven by increasing support among both Republicans and Democrats." The authors noted that "Republicans are more likely than Democrats" to favor the policy, with "roughly seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents" expressing support, but it still included 52 percent of Democrats and independents who lean in that direction.

Gallup found similar results earlier this year. The pollster "asked whether the U.S. should put more emphasis, less emphasis or about the same emphasis as it does now on producing domestic energy from each of six sources," wrote Megan Brenan. The six sources were solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal.

"Nuclear energy is the only one of the six sources to see support grow since 2021, rising seven points to 46%," Brenan added. "This shift is notable given that preferences for nuclear energy had historically been more evenly divided among responses of more, less and the same." Instead, those favoring more emphasis on nuclear power outranked both those who want less and those who wish for it to stay the same, by about 20 points each.

It seems the consensus has been building: In 2024, a poll of first-time voters in The Wall Street Journal found overwhelming support for nuclear energy as a means of fighting climate change.

The trend is welcome, and it marks a major reversal of anti-nuclear sentiment that goes back decades.

The China Syndrome, a film about a possible meltdown at a fictional California nuclear plant, premiered in the U.S. in March 1979. One character in the film warns that a meltdown could "render an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable, not to mention the cancer that would show up later."

Less than two weeks later, in a disastrous bit of timing, a malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Thankfully, Three Mile Island was not a disaster. "Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents," according to the World Nuclear Association. "There were no injuries or adverse health effects."

But those details were lost on the public. Several recording artists formed Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE), an activist group that opposed nuclear power. Just six months after Three Mile Island, MUSE held a series of "No Nukes" concerts at Madison Square Garden, plus a rally in Central Park that drew nearly 200,000 attendees.

That populist support spilled over into politics, particularly among Democrats. Running for president in 1980, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–Mass.) called for a two-year moratorium on new nuclear plants. In its national platform, the Democratic Party pledged to "retire nuclear power plants in an orderly manner."

After the Three Mile Island incident, 39 planned nuclear plants were canceled.

That's a shame, for many reasons. As Reason's Ronald Bailey wrote in 2018, in a theoretical world where the development of U.S. nuclear power continued at its previous pace, "by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation….Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less."

Yet even decades later, plenty of people—again, particularly Democrats—still opposed nuclear energy.

"Of all the Democratic divides on climate," Politico wrote in 2019, "the role of nuclear power may be the biggest. Progressives and some environmental groups have long lumped it into a category with fossil fuels, and some have spent decades opposing it."

At the time, a number of people were running to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, and many of them had strong opinions on nuclear energy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) said that she would not license any new nuclear reactors; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) pledged to go one step further and not renew the licenses of any existing reactors.

But things have changed in just a few short years, and nuclear energy is now an issue with potential bipartisan support. When did this pivot take place, and why?

"It was really around 2021, 2022, I would say that things really began to shift," James Walker, CEO of Nano Nuclear Energy, tells Reason. "A lot of the popular support looks like it's coming from younger people….It is a zero-carbon-emission power, and they have been raised to [be] more climate goal-focused" than older generations.

It's not just Gen Z either: Lawmakers are more keen on nuclear power now too. Earlier this month, the MORE American Fuel Act, sponsored by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.) and Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.), passed the Senate unanimously. The bill "modernizes outdated Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements for uranium enrichment facilities and aligns them with the process already used for other nuclear facilities and reactors," according to a press release from Lummis. It also "lets enrichment companies begin construction at their own risk instead of waiting years for a construction license before breaking ground, while preserving public participation and the NRC's rigorous safety standards."

"What we've seen up in Washington is that there is a nervousness around keeping pace with AI development," Walker adds. "There is a concern that rivals that are also investing very heavily into AI, such as China, are building nuclear reactors like crazy, and one of the reasons they're doing that is just so they have baseload power that allows them to scale up their systems. They are building two gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants every year at the moment, and a lot of it is to try and catch up with the U.S. tech industry."

The post Nuclear Power Now Has Bipartisan Support appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Why I Can't Go Back to Virginia Until It's Named Americaginia

2026-10-21T22:08:15Z

When I wake up each morning, the most important thing is that I avoid setting foot anywhere that is not American in Name Only (AINO). This, as a native Virginian, presents a problem. The state was named after England's Queen Elizabeth I, known as the "virgin queen" for her lack of a husband. How am I supposed to go back to Virginia until it is named Americaginia? I have principles.

Thankfully, President Donald Trump is on this, having made the AINO cause a top priority. He refashioned the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America via executive order; not long after, he decreed Lake Ontario would be Lake America with another wet signature. Naturally, New Mexico is the next target. The state "should immediately change its name to New America," Trump posted this week on Truth Social. "We are not Mexico, we are the United States of America!"

So true. New Mexico lawmakers would have to initiate the transition, and the public would have to approve it—the president cannot do so with an executive order here. But it is vitally important that, when he can, he continue changing the names of geographic landmarks to maximize the use of those four beautiful syllables. And when he cannot, he must raise awareness of the AINO spirit.

I should know. I'm surrounded. Though I am no longer living in ***ginia, I reside in the District of Columbia, a name that strikes fear and loathing into the hearts of any AINO patriot. Columbia is derived from Christopher Columbus, who in 1492 sailed that ocean blue—presently called the Atlantic, we'll return to that momentarily—to what is now America. But are we really going to let our nation's capital conjure up visions of a country in South America, give or take an o? Perhaps a better question: Do we want it dedicated to an Italian? Rechristening it the District of America would be a win for AINO, a win for Trump, and a win for the progressives who hate Columbus Day. Boom.

To the north we have Maryland—named after Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of England's King Charles I—which will need to be Americaland if I am to cross that line again. (I also ask that Americaland's drivers stop learning their technique from Grand Theft Auto.) Looking southward, I'm trapped as well: The Carolinas bear the title of Charles himself. If there is any justice, North Carolina will be North America, and South Carolina will be South America. Yes, those technically already exist, but these are the real North and South America. The others are the fake ones. (West Virginia is easy: West Americaginia.)

The president could plausibly change the names of the seas that surround this great country. At least, he could change their names in the Geographic Names Information System. Columbus sailed the American Ocean. The Pacific, meanwhile, is properly the West American Ocean—or, given that its waves break against California, the Woke American Ocean. There's something in the water.

Many may find Trump's obsession with AINO bewildering. In reality, it is to be expected. A national-populist presidency must have the requisite packaging—whether the branding primarily promotes policy or is the main event itself is a fair question. Trump is a showman, so there must be a show.

We are approaching the intermission of the second Trump administration. The plot twists—though sometimes predictable—have consisted of higher prices for everyday goods (tariffs), higher gas prices (the war in Iran), and Apple Maps now showing Rochester's shores opening their arms to Lake America. The country may be more expensive, inflation not yet vanquished, government spending altitudinous, the swamp waterlogged, that promised golden age still elusive. But at least America is more American in Name Only.

The post Why I Can't Go Back to Virginia Until It's Named Americaginia appeared first on Reason Magazine.

X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It

2026-10-21T16:09:36Z

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's (LPNH) X account—which has become infamous for its bigoted and controversy-ridden posts—is finally gone. But the state's spurious role in its banning raises free speech concerns.

Last week, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to X's safety team, asking the company to suspend the account. Ayotte's letter made mention of several clear violations of X's content policies: "This account has openly called for the assassination of elected officials from the New Hampshire Democratic Party, has said it condones murdering elected officials for their policy positions, and most recently threatened a member of House leadership.…I'm calling on X to remove [the posts] and suspend the account immediately."

The letter referenced one particularly bold post from September (which the account later deleted). The post read: "We openly support the assassination of basically every elected democrat in New Hampshire. But if you don't have the balls to do it, then you should probably vote GOP."

X suspended the account the day after Ayotte sent the letter.

The removal of the LPNH account has likely elicited a sigh of relief from the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) leadership, which has repeatedly tussled with LPNH over its extreme rhetoric, undermining of L.P. candidates, and constant creation of P.R. crises for the party. In 2024, the LPNH endorsed Donald Trump for president instead of Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, pushing the Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate LPNH from the L.P.'s structure this past May. The Granite State Libertarian Party was designated the state's new L.P. affiliate in September.

Even though the LPNH has clearly violated X's terms and does not adhere to the most basic requirements for L.P. membership (such as pledging to uphold the nonaggression principle), the government should not tell private firms when to enforce their own policies. This sentiment was shared by Granite State L.P., which recently said in a social media post, "While a private company has a right to remove someone screaming about setting people on fire…the government should play zero part in that decision."

Jeremy Kauffman, the chair of the LPNH, is outraged but unsurprised, posting on Sunday that he and the LPNH are "exploring a lawsuit against the New Hampshire government." He tells Reason, "Ayotte's letter was a classic example of jawboning. When a governor sends a demanding letter like this to a private company, there is a clear implicit threat attached."

Speaking to Reason, Trace Mitchell, a technology and free speech expert at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, defines jawboning as, "when the government, through veiled threats or direct coercion, pressures a private entity to take an action that the government could not lawfully take or mandate itself."

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make recommendations to private companies if those recommendations come with legal repercussions—even implied or veiled repercussions. Doing so would qualify as jawboning, which violates the First Amendment. Though Ayotte's letter could be construed as extralegal pressure, it does not imply a punishment for noncompliance and likely falls short of legally recognized jawboning.

Addressing Kauffman's proposed lawsuit, Mitchell says, "In this case he would likely have to show there is something beyond this letter…[like] outside communications, emails or text with X."

Safety officers at X provided no comment to Reason to justify the suspension. It is not clear whether there was any external communication involved beyond the letter. Without a more definite connection between Ayotte's request and X's decision, Kauffman may struggle to win in court. Still, that doesn't make the governor's request any less concerning.

While Ayotte's letter was a surprise, it was not unprecedented. As social media has become the public forum, all levels of government have tried to regulate what is said there. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal officials under the Biden administration were revealed to be in near-constant communication with major social media firms, encouraging and recommending that misinformation be removed from the platforms. Many of these recommendations were paired with implied threats to review the firms' legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, which spawned a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024.

Although the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, some lawmakers have taken action to address concerns over jawboning, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) introducing the JAWBONE Act in June. The bill would make it easier for members of the public to sue government officials who pressure media networks, as well as require increased transparency for all federal communications to media networks.

Even if Kauffman cannot find legal remit, Ayotte's letter was a troubling move for the future of internet speech. Many of the offending posts referenced were months old or had been deleted before the letter was sent. The LPNH has likely been violating X's content policy for years, but X only took action after the government instructed it to.

You don't need a judge to see how that might be concerning.

The post X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Body Armor Ban Struck Down by N.Y. Federal Court

2026-10-21T17:48:18Z

From today's decision by Judge John Sinatra (W.D.N.Y.) in Heeter v. James:

New York enacted a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting law-abiding residents-who are not engaged or employed in an eligible profession-from purchasing body armor for self-defense. New York enacted this legislation "to further strengthen gun laws." New York's body armor legislation, however, violates the Second Amendment….

In D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Court made it clear what the term "Arms" meant when the Second Amendment was ratified. In explaining that "[t]he 18th-century meaning" of the term "Arms" is "no different from the meaning today[,]" the Court quoted multiple dictionaries from the Seventeenth Century. Specifically, "[t]he 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined 'arms' as '[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.' 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined 'arms' as 'any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.' 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989).'' As a result, this Court is bound by Heller's textual analysis, which demonstrates that the word "arms" included armor at the Nation's founding (as it does today)….

The State submits that, during the Founding Era, armor "had become rare or even entirely obsolete in everyday American English" and "the protective leather gear of th[e] pre-Kevlar era was notoriously ineffective against bullets, meaning civilians did not typically wear such body protection either." This argument runs headlong into the definitions adopted by Heller, nevertheless indicating that the term "arms"—as it was defined in the Founding Era—included defensive body armor that (according to the State) was supposedly rarely utilized in 1791.

Body armor may be used more today than Defendants' understanding of its use in 1791. But it strains credulity to say that an arm that was rarely used during the Founding Era—yet still protected by the Second Amendment per Heller—is no longer protected despite being much more common among Americans today.

Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with Heller's clear statement that the Second Amendment "extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." While body armor may not have been in common use at the founding—although the commonly understood definition of "arms" included body armor—neither were other arms commonly used for self-defense, such as resolvers, semiautomatic pistols, and stun guns. See Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) (Alito, J., concurring). The defensive body armor available today is "no more exempt from the Second Amendment's protections, simply because [it was] unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment." …

Even if the definitions put forth by the Supreme Court in Heller are dicta, this Court has an "obligation to accord great deference to Supreme Court dicta," absent a change in the legal landscape. Defendants have not suggested—nor can they—that a change in the legal landscape exists that would require this Court to ignore how Heller defined the term "arms." …

Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated that body armor is an "arm" protected by the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of arms regulation. The State fails to do so….

The State argues that there exists a "centuries-long historical tradition" demonstrating that, "when body armor has been in use, it has been subject to government regulation." Yet, the State is unable to identify a single regulation on body armor post-ratification…. The State contends that its body armor ban is consistent with "English monarchs and parliaments" who "regularly issued laws forbidding or restricting the wearing of armor …." Not only is this analogy irrelevant to the regulation of arms in the United States, but it also ignores the historical reason the right to keep and bear arms is "understood to be an individual right protecting against public and private violence." Accordingly, the Court interprets the English history put forth by the State in light of these principles and articulates that it is not "sufficiently probative" to defend New York's body armor ban….

The State points to the Statute of Northampton for support for its position that there is a long-standing tradition of restricting who can purchase body armor. The law prohibited anyone to "go, nor ride armed by night, nor by day, in fairs markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armor to the King and their bodies to prison, at the king's pleasure." Notwithstanding the ink that continues to be spilled over this law, the Supreme Court has stated that "the Statute of Northampton—at least as it was understood during the Middle Ages—has little bearing on the Second Amendment adopted in 1791." N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)….

The State's analogy to the Statute of Northampton is an attempt to justify its body armor ban by speculating that individuals only wear body armor to terrify the public. Yet, this ignores the reality put forth by Plaintiffs, that the public is more likely to reach for body armor to protect themselves from terrifying circumstances. In Rahimi, the Supreme Court concluded that "[a]n individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment." Here, however, the State is suggesting that a merely broad-based suspicion over the population at large is sufficient to justify a universal ban on the sale and purchase of a specific type of arm. And to the extent that the State analogizes this to prohibiting criminals from purchasing body armor, other statutes already criminalize the use of body armor while committing violent crimes. The State's categorical prohibition of a specific type of arm to law-abiding citizens at large, is untethered from any historical tradition-including the Statute of Northampton….

Nicolas J. Rotsko (Fluet) represents plaintiffs.

The post Body Armor Ban Struck Down by N.Y. Federal Court appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Homeland Security Lied About Child Porn To Search Activist's Phone

2026-10-21T22:09:14Z

One of the unfortunate quirks of the American system is that you can't lie to the government, but the government can lie to you. Samuel Tunick found himself on the receiving end of this setup last year at Atlanta International Airport. When agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked for his phone password, he allegedly gave them a self-destruct code that wiped his data. Tunick now faces five years in prison for destroying evidence.

It turns out that the feds were lying to Tunick the entire time. A new court filing, first reported by 404 Media, shows that the DHS had sent out an order to seize Tunick's phone over his involvement in environmentalist protests in Atlanta. When he landed at the airport, however, agents told Tunick that they were looking for "kiddie porn" and he would be allowed to leave with his phone if he cooperated. They also repeatedly denied him access to his lawyer when he asked.

"There can be no real debate that if law enforcement had acted similarly elsewhere in Atlanta, their actions would be unconstitutional. But the government says it was entitled to act this way because Mr. Tunick was returning from an international vacation" in the Dominican Republic, his lawyers wrote in the filing, which includes internal DHS communications and excerpts from his interrogation video.

U.S. law recognizes a "border exception" to Fourth Amendment privacy rights, allowing federal agents to search incoming travelers for contraband. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims that this exemption also allows them to hold travelers for questioning and search their electronic data. Tunick's case reveals just how widely the agency stretches this loophole.

A few hours before Tunick landed, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent Travis Mcghie emailed the CBP station in Atlanta with his photo and information, stating that he is under investigation for "suspected terrorist activities." (Tunick is involved in Save the Atlanta Forest, also known as Stop Cop City, a protest movement against a local police training center.) The email asked CBP to "conduct a 100% baggage exam, retain all electronics and collect passcodes," stating that the HSI will be at the airport to conduct an interrogation.

Pulled into the secondary screening room, Tunick "almost immediately" told CBP officers that "I don't really want to speak without a lawyer any more," according to the filing, which cites the interrogation tape. He would ask for a lawyer multiple times.

The agents asked Tunick if he had "kiddie porn" on his phone and stated that "because you're refusing to talk, we have the authority to go through your phone to see what we're looking for." One of them, Latoya Castro, told Tunick that "either you can give us your password so that we can go through it no problem, or you can refuse to do that, unfortunately, we will have to seize your phone."

Both of those statements were a lie, of course. The HSI's email had asked CBP to take Tunick's phone, whether or not he cooperated.

The lie about child porn may not only have been meant to intimidate Tunick. While there are contradictory lower court rulings about the border search exemption, some courts have ruled that the CBP can only search electronics for "digital contraband," or files that are themselves illegal. A search for child sex abuse material would be on stronger legal ground than a search for mere evidence of other crimes.

Tunick was using GrapheneOS, a secure phone system that allows users to set both a real password and a "duress password" that wipes out all data when entered. The interrogation tape shows his phone appearing to reset after he gave the officers a passcode. HSI agent Nathan Burnham and FBI agent Andrea Coble then entered the room.

"You are not under arrest. Once these gentlemen are done with you, pursuant to your entry into the country, you're free to leave," Burnham said, referring to the CBP officers.

Tunick's lawyers argue that the judge should throw out the phone password Tunick provided and everything that resulted from entering it as an "involuntary" response made under "unlawful interrogation," because the CBP agents did not read Tunick his Fifth Amendment rights and ignored his multiple requests to consult with his lawyer before answering their questions.

The CBP claims that secondary screening at the border doesn't count as a criminal investigation, so detainees don't have the same rights as criminal suspects. "Since the international arrivals inspection is an administrative function, CBP policy and federal regs do not permit the presence of lawyers during secondary examinations," a spokesman told Reason earlier this year.

But Tunick's lawyers insist that his experience was "far outside" a normal border crossing: He was accused of a serious crime to his face, faced an investigation for a different serious crime he didn't know about, and clearly could not leave the situation until he gave information to government agents.

"I hope people understand that the charges against me are meant to intimidate people against protecting their data and their privacy, and the government hopes to set a precedent that no one has the right to privacy," Tunick told 404 Media.

Defend the Atlanta Forest, the movement that Tunick is involved with, has been a major nuisance for authorities in Georgia. Protesters attacked and burned construction equipment throughout 2022, and police shot a protester in 2023 under unclear circumstances, claiming that they were fired at during a raid.

The Trump administration has brought down the federal government against the movement. In June 2026, the Department of Justice brought federal charges against two alleged arsonists, citing National Security Presidential Memo 7, which directs the feds to go after left-wing domestic terrorism.

But beyond the email line about "suspected terrorist activities," there is no indication of what specific crimes the feds suspected Tunick of, or why they suspected him. And the whole setup of the interrogation was designed to hide those answers. In fact, instead of charging Tunick under typical obstruction or evidence-destruction laws, federal prosecutors chose a rarely-used statute that doesn't require them to disclose what the underlying investigation was about.

"Many times the government wants to highlight what it was trying to investigate because that ups the stakes on what the defendant was doing," former prosecutor Daniel Richman told The New York Times. "This is a case where I think they're trying to avoid exactly that by focusing only on the destruction, and not what the investigation was about."

The post Homeland Security Lied About Child Porn To Search Activist's Phone appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Rezoning Request for Catholic Shrine May Have Been Denied Because of Shrine's "Pro-Life Message"

2026-10-21T15:35:46Z

From Judge Stephanos Bibas, joined by Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, in Monday's Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church v. Township of Collier:

Holy Trinity is a Ukrainian Catholic parish outside Pittsburgh. It practices the Catholic faith, but with rituals and architecture that are distinctively Ukrainian. The parish owns two plots of land. On one of them, in Carnegie, sits a church, where it holds regular liturgies. The other plot, in nearby Collier Township, has been owned by the parish for more than seven decades. That 41-acre plot houses the parish's cemetery and mausoleum but is otherwise mostly wooded.

About three years ago, Holy Trinity's pastor felt called to turn the second plot into a shrine, a pilgrimage destination for faithful to gather from "near and far." The shrine would "honor Mary, the Mother of God, and would pay homage to the sanctity of life." With the help of lawyers, architects, and traffic consultants, Holy Trinity designed the shrine. It envisioned a 13,000-square-foot chapel with gold domes, a bell tower, a museum, a gift shop, and a retreat center.

But the plot is constrained by Collier Township's zoning code. The code divides the township into districts, each of which allows certain types of buildings. The northern, wooded half of the plot lies in a planned-economic-development district, allowing larger projects like business offices, amusement parks, or country clubs. The southern half is in a rural-residential district, allowing farms and single-family homes. Neither district contemplates shrines.

The zoning code is enforced by Collier's five-member Board of Commissioners. The Board has power not only to rezone land or amend the code, but also to approve or deny some building projects, because the code makes some land uses conditional. For instance, the code conditionally allows new churches in rural-residential districts, but only if the Board approves them. In any event, anything as big as Holy Trinity's shrine needs the Board's approval.

To fit the shrine project into the zoning code, Holy Trinity applied to do two things. First, it asked the Board to amend the zoning code to allow planned cultural centers, including the shrine, in economic-development districts. Second, it sought to rezone some of its rural-residential land into economic-development land, to make a larger plot for the shrine. As part of its application, Holy Trinity included sketches of its shrine plus a traffic study showing minimal impact on the surrounding community. After a live hearing with concerned residents, the Board denied Holy Trinity's application, expressing concern about traffic and Holy Trinity's fundraising projections. Some residents, and at least one Board member, were also troubled once they learned that the shrine's message would be pro-life.

So Holy Trinity tried again with a smaller project. It applied to build a modest chapel entirely on its rural-residential land. Though the Board approved the new application, it came with strings attached, limiting bell ringing, the height of the chapel, and who could be remembered at memorial services….

The majority held that Holy Trinity wasn't entitled to a preliminary injunction, because the harm could be repaired by damages (one of the elements of the preliminary injunction inquiry); on this matter, the majority and Judge Paul Matey's dissent had an interesting and complicated debate. But here's a passage as to the facts that struck me as worth noting, even apart from that controversy:

Finally, and most troubling, both community and Board members objected to the shrine's pro-life message. One resident worried that "Father Jason has been very involved in pro life. This is to be a pro life museum … [W]hen you think very political rights, either side, it brings a lot of danger, a lot of protests, as well as costs that could be incurred by the community." Another complained that "the intent of the shrine was a celebration for Roe vs. Wade being overturned … [and] reparation for sin of abortion and counseling, spiritual direction …. this will bring a bunch [of people] potentially for a rally and this could also bring the opposite as well for protest."

Privately, at least one of the Board's members agreed. The day after the hearing, that commissioner forwarded an email about the shrine's pro-life stance to the rest of the Board: "Looks like we might have dodged a bullet last night. The true inten[t] of the shrine" was pro-life and "This could have been a disaster." Another township officer, copied on the email, seemed to affirm those sentiments. Nothing in the record suggests that any other Board member responded and disagreed. And in her deposition, the Board member who wrote the email confirmed that "one of the reasons" that the Board had denied the application was Holy Trinity's pro-life purpose. She also defended denying land-use approval "based on the nature of the religious service to be held in the building."

These objections hint at unconstitutional religious hostility and content-based discrimination, concerns that would be better addressed on a more developed factual record. But at the very least, they strongly suggest that the Board resists ever approving the shrine project. If so, the rezoning denial is effectively absolute, and the "degree" of burden on Holy Trinity is substantial. Plus, the township does not show that denying approval altogether is the least-restrictive means to serve a compelling interest. That is enough to show that Holy Trinity is very likely to prevail on its RLUIPA [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act] substantial-burden claim….

The post Rezoning Request for Catholic Shrine May Have Been Denied Because of Shrine's "Pro-Life Message" appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Are Prediction Markets Just Gambling? Kalshi CEO Responds

2026-10-21T15:00:40Z

Today's guest is Tarek Mansour, the 30-year-old billionaire co-founder and CEO of Kalshi, the prediction market platform where users can trade on the outcomes of everything from elections and economic forecasts to sporting events and the weather. As prediction markets surge in popularity, Kalshi is facing legal challenges from states that argue it's operating an illegal gambling business. But Mansour insists that prediction markets are fundamentally different from casinos and sportsbooks and that efforts to restrict them threaten a powerful new source of information about the future.

Nick Gillespie talks with Mansour about Kalshi's battles with state regulators, why he believes the gambling industry is trying to stifle competition, and how prediction markets can help businesses manage risk. Mansour explains why ordinary people can sometimes forecast economic trends more accurately than Wall Street professionals. They also discuss Mansour's journey from growing up in Lebanon to building a multibillion-dollar American company and his concerns about rising inequality and the declining enthusiasm for entrepreneurship. Mansour argues that capitalism needs to give more Americans a stake in its success without sacrificing the innovation that makes it possible.

0:00—How prediction markets differ from casinos

4:55—Do prediction markets serve a public good?

8:18—Markets, price discovery, and the economy

11:36—Why does Kalshi ban insider trading?

14:06—CFTC and federal regulation

17:26—How Kalshi differs from Polymarket

22:30—Do prediction markets have a corrosive effect?

25:03—Kalshi's ban on athlete harassment

26:49—Arizona and New York lawsuits

31:30—State versus federal regulation

33:45—Why is Kalshi exploding in popularity?

35:57—Mansour's background and the American Dream

39:55—Wealth gap narratives and an inclusive economy

42:39—Will a Democratic Congress hurt Kalshi?

45:17—Mansour's prediction for Kalshi

47:48—Will state lawsuits require a Supreme Court decision?

Producer: Paul Alexander

Director of Photography: Kevin Alexander

Camera Operator: Meagan O'Rourke

Audio Engineer: Ian Keyser

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Nick Gillespie: This is The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. I'm talking today with Tarek Mansour. He's the co-founder of Kalshi, the prediction market platform that allows people to win or lose money, or invest or not money, on everything from election results to weather outcomes to who will win Dancing With the Stars and, of course, all sorts of sports. Thank you so much, Tarek.

Tarek Mansour: I'm excited.

You're 30 years old, you're a billionaire, and you are a big believer in prediction markets as truth machines. I want to talk about that in a minute. But first, Kalshi gives money to a lot of nonprofits, including Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this podcast. There are no conditions on this interview.

Tell me first, what is a prediction market, in the simplest terms possible, and why is it different than a sportsbook?

I think a prediction market, in the simplest terms possible, it really is like the stock market. We're matching buyers and sellers in an open marketplace that is competitive. The thing that they're trading is not a small, specific subset that Johnny Wall Street cares about, whether it's a stock or a bond or a credit default swap or all these kinds of sophisticated things. It's simple questions about the future.

Right. So everything is yes or no?

And some things are actually more like, is it going to go up or down? And there are more structures now. But I think a prediction market is just a generalization of the stock market. One way to think about the stock market is actually a prediction market on the prices of stocks on companies.

And you make money not on whether or not you bet right or wrong. You're not the house. You run the platform, so it's like you own the casino. And you're not staking anything…

No, it's exactly the opposite. We're exactly like owning the stock market. We're like the New York Stock Exchange, right? The New York Stock Exchange is not in the business of pricing a stock or setting the prices. They're in the business of matching buyers and sellers.

And so you may have an opinion that something's going to happen, and somebody else may think that something is not going to happen. And we match the two of you to settle that disagreement of opinion via trade.

Historically, that's about stocks. Someone thinks Apple stock is going to be worth more than the current price, more than $100 per share, and someone thinks it's not actually going to be, that it's overpriced. They make a trade as a way to settle that difference of opinion.

The difference in a prediction market is you're doing it on whether Brexit is going to happen or not. And you may think that it's very likely that Brexit happens, and someone else, your counterparty, may think that it's not very likely it's going to happen.

And let's say the market right now is trading at a 40 percent chance, 40 cents on the dollar. You may want to buy, and the other person wants to sell, and we match the two of you. And I take 0.7 percent. So if you put in $100, the other person puts in $100, I take 70 cents.

And now, very quickly, explain why that's different from a sportsbook, like why you're not Fanduel….

Here's how I'll explain it, and I'll get back to exactly the sportsbook analogy.

So when the first version of financial markets came around, and very few people know this, people think that the first financial market was the stock market, but actually it wasn't. It was the commodities market.

The first real example of a financial market was the rice futures exchange in Japan. And then in the U.S., it's really become very popular at the end of the 19th century. It was farmers, they were trading on the price of grain using grain futures, and then over time, it evolved to oil futures, etc.

And at the time, it was really interesting because when I tell you about grain futures right now, you don't think gambling. You think boring, mainstream financial markets.

But at the time, the states were suing the Chicago Board of Trade, saying this is gambling. And what was the claim? It was saying, "Well, farmers are betting on the price of grain. They're speculating, and so it looks and feels like gambling. What's the difference?"

And at the time, they didn't have sportsbooks or casinos. They had the bucket shops, which were different from the Chicago Board of Trade.

So what were the bucket shops? A bucket shop was a place where the shop, which was functioning like a casino, set the prices. They would say, here's the price of grain, and here's what I'll let you buy, and here's what I'll let you sell.

And then the purpose was basically, it was a casino. Farmers would come in, bet against the bucket shop, and then they would lose money. And if you made a little bit, if you were a smart, sophisticated trader, they would ban you. You know, the card counters get banned from the casinos.

It continues to happen on sports betting.

In sportsbetting or casinos, right? Like, if you're a smart, sharp trader, you get limited. And if you maybe have some addiction issues or you lose consistently, you get promos, and you keep coming back. That is the gambling business model. That is the end.

And when people were claiming that the exchange was gambling, at the time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Chicago Board of Trade.

And the basis was very simple. It's like, yes, some people are speculating, which looks and feels like betting, sure. But the mechanism is different, and there's a public good that comes out of it.

The mechanism is a free, neutral platform that lets people trade against each other. And what it needs and incentivizes, it incentivizes the card counters, the smart traders, because the public good that it brings is the informational knowledge that it gives to people.

Talk a bit about this, because this is key to your argument, and we'll get into the regulatory structures and the cases against you, but that prediction markets serve a public good because they give more information about what is likely to happen or how actors are going about their business. How does that happen?

In particular, at a place like Kalshi, you can bet on whether it's going to rain tomorrow or how much. How does that in any way create information that is useful?

Yep. So our weather forecast, so when people are trading on whether it's going to rain tomorrow or not, what happens is you get price discovery.

Some people think the odds of rain are a little bit higher than the market, so they buy it, which moves it a little up. And then some people think it's lower, and it moves it a little down. And that continuous thing is how a stock moves. That's why we call it price discovery.

Price discovery is essentially, there's a quote from a Supreme Court decision in 1905. It's really neat. It's like this idea that speculation is the self-adjustment of society to the probable.

Which is like it's the self-adjustment of the market, the wisdom of the crowds, to what we think is going to happen.

There were papers actually a week or two ago that compared our weather forecast, like the forecast from the prediction markets on the weather, to the most accurate national blended average of weather station forecasts, and we were 10 percent more accurate.

I mean, just very quickly, how does that happen? Because Joe Schmo betting on the weather, he doesn't have satellite information.

So let me give you a little bit of history.

Prediction markets, I think the founder of prediction markets is Friedrich Hayek, the economist. He used to call them information markets, not prediction markets.

And what was the sort of central thesis? At the time, he was saying we have a knowledge problem. The knowledge problem is that our decisions in society, whether it's D.C., whether it's executives, are centralized.

It's you and I sitting in a room and making a very critical decision about the future of the country. But the information that's relevant to that decision is actually very decentralized. It's sitting with a bunch of different people, hundreds of thousands, millions of people distributed across the board.

So we need a magnet. We need the mechanism to bring that information from everyone so we can make better decisions over time.

That's what markets do.

That's exactly what markets do. Market prices are a very good aggregator of information.

Ok, so then the idea is that somehow the people who are betting on the weather have some kind of meaningful knowledge that otherwise would not be—

And by the way, people are not even usually, for example, for the Senate race right now, they don't buy Democrat or Republican and then hold it till maturity. They buy if they think the price is underpriced, and they sell if it's overpriced. They're constantly trading these things.

But the key thing here, when I started the company in 2018, a few years before that, Philip Tetlock did…

At the University of Pennsylvania.

He's actually at MIT.

Oh, I'm sorry. Ok.

And it's about superforecasters. And the whole thing, he was trying to figure out the science of forecasting. What are these people who are good at forecasting?

And he pitted a bunch of elites on geopolitics, the big pundits, and he pit them against a bunch of random dudes, basically, and had them predict geopolitical events. And guess which group did better? The random dudes.

And it was amazing because it tells you a little bit that actually there is a lot of wisdom in this idea of the wisdom of the crowds. The average people, if you add them all up, and all their bits and pieces of information, you end up getting a way better solution and result than the small group of elites.

And this gets reflected, I mean, the way Hayek talks about it in "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and throughout all Austrian school of economics, is markets and prices are discovery systems that transmit information.

That's exactly what it is.

And prediction markets are like transmitting information about a much broader… We used to care about— farmers used to care about what the price of grain is going to be. Why?

And I go back to the farmer. Imagine we had banned grain futures as gambling at the time. There's a very clear net impact on society today, which would be what? Why would it be important?

That price discovery that was happening was giving the farmer predictability on what the price is going to be of grain in September. So now I'm in March, I know how much I can invest, how much I can plant.

If you take that away from them, what would they do? They would plant less. They would just, because with less predictability, you can invest less. And so actually, our food supply would go down. That's how critical grain futures are.

So that makes total sense. And then just to press on this a little bit, as a libertarian, I like markets and everything. I like prediction markets, etc. But what is the positive social externality, other than people being able to express themselves or entertain themselves, with like betting on Dancing With the Stars?

Well, I think to me, some people may disagree on the lines, but a lot of people care about that. And I'll give you a lot of examples.

At a high level, it seems like we agree with the premise that getting smarter, even if it's a little smarter, about what's going to happen will enable us to make better decisions and allocate resources more effectively and manage risk more effectively, right?

Now, what's interesting is actually I always think of this as like, you want more markets on more things because like—

It's more information.

It's more information. It's just that simple.

And I'll give you an example. This was the same argument that was made. So there were two types of commodity derivatives that were banned. Onion futures, which I can tell you the story, there was a wild story.

The second one is box office futures. Box office futures, in 2010, there was an exchange that was trying to bring them to light, which is an idea to do price discovery on how successful a movie is going to be beforehand.

Guess who killed it?

I'm assuming the movie companies.

The big ones. Why? Because they wanted less information. And the argument was at the time, well, it's frivolous. What is the purpose of knowing if a movie is going to be successful? It's a frivolous thing…

And this is called a Keynesian beauty contest or something, where you're betting on what you think other people will say is going to happen or something.

Yeah, I mean, but in this specific one, it's more like they were saying, "Look, knowing if this movie is going to be successful or not, that seems frivolous. It's not like grain futures. We should ban it."

But they actually had an ulterior motive, and there's a reason they did not want price discovery, for two reasons.

Because one, if the market can predict ahead of time how successful a movie is going to be, it'll be harder for them to juice the three or four weeks of box office they get in a bad movie before the word gets out. And there was a second reason. If you have a market that will tell you upfront, actually, "This team is doing a good job, even though it's a small team with a smaller brand," you may attract more investment to the smaller studios, which was going to bring more competition to the space. You will get more efficient….

I mean, markets are democratizing, ultimately, or they push against centralization.

More information is always better, and oftentimes monopolies and incumbents want less information because, you know, the markets usually reduce…

Well now let me… I want to get to the regulatory structure you're currently under, plus what various states are trying to fit you into, a different kind of regulatory structure. But just on this moment, let's stop for a second.

If more information is always better, why do you ban insider trading? Because there is an argument that insider trading is absolutely the best information, and it changes prices very quickly and makes markets clear more—

And libertarians, that's the argument, and the free market side of me always tells you that you want more. You want as much as possible.

And you want, like, when Practical Magic 2 is coming out, you want people in the studio who have seen it, who know it sucks, to change, you know, to…

I would argue yes, in theory. I'll say where in practice.

But maybe right before, I want to just make, because you asked me about the gambling distinction, which we'll get to with insider trading.

The gambling business model is one where the thing they incentivize for their customers is fun and entertainment and to keep losing. That's why they give you the suites and the drinks, and they keep you losing.

Prediction markets, what they incentivize is going out there, like markets, seek knowledge, seek truth, and then come to get rewarded for it in the open market. That is why there is a fundamental difference.

And it doesn't matter what the topic is. It could be grain futures. It could be weather. It could be economics. It could be sports. It doesn't really matter. The structure, the former structure, is what really matters.

Now, on the other argument, I agree with you. It's like, well, the insiders, should they be allowed to trade? And the way I always answer the question is, why is insider trading banned in the stock market? Because in theory, we would get more accurate prices in the stock market.

And there's a very practical reason, and this is how markets should be regulated. And I strongly believe that. That's why we took a pro-regulatory-first approach to this.

Because markets can only exist if there are fair rules of the road and the competition is fair and equitable across all the participants. So I think actually…

And people need to believe that the market are not…

Otherwise, they stop trading.

Free markets, in my view, if you take the opposite of free markets, it's this idea that there's a privileged, closed circle that has access to specialized information. Right? And the key thing in the line I was drawing is, if the information is something you can access by doing research and work and putting in the effort, no matter who you are, then it's fair game.

But if it's information that you only will have privileged access to because, I don't know, you work in government or you're an executive at a team, then it's unfair. Then it creates an unfair dynamic that over time dries up liquidity and makes actually the market less efficient because nobody will trade. People won't trade.

So this helps explain, you noted you co-founded Kalshi in 2018. You went to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to get licensed and regulated at the federal level. So when people say, "Oh, you guys are completely unregulated," that isn't accurate. But you're…

It's completely inaccurate.

Yeah. How does the CFTC regulate what you do? And then we'll get into how and why states might be trying to change that.

Yeah, I mean, I think they're two entirely different… There's a reason why the states are trying to change that, and we'll talk about that. It's fundamental protectionism.

So the beauty of the Commodity Exchange Act, why did it come? It actually got created after this whole fight that the Chicago Board of Trade was having with the states. And Congress, in '74, enacted the Commodity Exchange Act to actually preempt two types of laws: state insurance laws and state gaming laws.

And there's a reason why. Because on an open exchange, in grain futures or on Kalshi, there are two types of activity: speculation, which looks and feels like gambling, or hedging, which looks and feels like insurance.

The difference between those two is they're being done on an open market.

And why do you need the federal statute? Why didn't they let the Chicago Board of Trade be done state by state? It's because it didn't work. And here's the easiest way to explain it. Imagine we siloed the New York Stock Exchange, the stock market, state by state, where in New York, you can only buy Apple stock from New Yorkers.

Imagine we had 50 different New York stock exchanges, different prices, different rules, fragmented liquidity.

What would happen? Worse prices, a bunch of deadweight loss, lower liquidity. You probably won't be able to, if you're in Kansas, you won't be able to buy as much stock as you want.

It is a completely anti-market kind of structure.

What you want is a federal, uniform set of rules that apply across all 50 states that promote and foster this sort of multilateral, peer-to-peer idea. Someone in California is trading with someone in Texas, and you want as much information as possible. You don't want to silo information. That's the anti-market view.

And what does regulation mean, and why is it important for us, first, for us to really get regulated as commodities? It's because the rules that apply to trading on oil futures or interest rate swaps or politics on Kalshi are largely the same.

So what do you want to prevent against? You want to prevent against insider trading, prevent against market manipulation, so doing things that move the market price unnaturally for profit. You want to add sensible guardrails around knowing who your customers are and money laundering and that sort of thing.

And I believe in this, and I think this is where the regulation is very important. It's like all these products, whether it's grain futures or sports betting or prediction markets or trading options on Robinhood, most of the use is fine.

And it's not about people winning or losing. I think the competition, some people are going to win, some people lose.

But there's some degree of irresponsible use. I do believe in that. And I believe in individual freedom. People should be able to choose, but I think there should be some regulations on irresponsible use so that companies are not targeting those types of behavior.

The sportsbooks constantly target those types of…

Yeah, so let's just, real quickly, how do you guard against insider trading? I mean, you ban it, but how do you know whether insider trading is happening? How do you know whether or not somebody who has a problem is continuing to use Kalshi? How do you find out?

Yeah, so insider trading, I mean, it's the ever question for a stock market. How do you know? And it's largely a very similar mechanism.

So one, you have to verify all customers. It's like onboarding onto Schwab, opening a brokerage account. You have to…

Are you covered by know-your-customer rules?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. As a regulator.

And that is distinct from something like Polymarket, which is based offshore, and they're struggling with the idea that there may have been a member of the U.S. military who bet on Maduro being removed because he was part of the operation, which is kind of a classic case of insider trading.

It certainly is insider trading, for sure.

Because insider trading is like, are you trading on material nonpublic information? So do you have a piece of information that you're not supposed to disclose legally? And trading is a form of disclosure. You can't go say it, so you…

Ok, so you follow KYC, but then, yeah, and then how? So how do you…?

And then you have the same systems as the New York Stock Exchange, which basically flag suspicious patterns.

I mean, insider trading or market manipulation, the patterns are always weird. You always have an account that is trading hundreds of dollars, and now they're trading thousands of dollars all of a sudden on an asymmetric shot. What's happening, right?

And the last piece is you enforce. So when you find someone, we have, as a self-regulatory organization, we can impose fines all the way to referrals for criminal prosecution.

And the last piece that's so interesting about the prediction market, so I think it's even unique compared to some of the financial markets, all of our trades are public. It's all fully transparent.

So our customers, because why is insider trading bad? There's someone who gets harmed when someone commits insider trading. It's the person on the other side. That person is extremely incentivized to whistleblow, usually.

And so, George Santos basically tried to commit insider trading on Kalshi a few months ago. We had 100 whistleblower complaints within a few minutes because traders immediately tell us, "Oh, this is weird," and they can all see it publicly.

And that's actually kind of a curse because the press talks about insider trading cases on prediction markets all day because they're so easy to flag.

That's actually a blessing, if you really think about it, because it's so obvious. It's so clear.

So let's talk about…

You're committing a crime in broad daylight, right?

Yeah. So the state of Arizona, I mean, there's about 20 jurisdictions, I guess states, also some Indian tribes and things like that, that are bringing suits against Kalshi.

Arizona, earlier this year, launched a criminal indictment that you're running an illegal gambling operation. New York state, we're talking in New York, and you guys are headquartered in New York, right? It's saying that you are basically, I guess it's not a criminal indictment, but they think you owe them billions of dollars because you're essentially a gambling operation.

What do they get wrong? And what do they get wrong about your structure?

I mean, let me read to you something that I've sort of been looking at recently that I've been sort of really into.

I'll read you one of the court opinions, and here's how it sort of goes:

"We are clearly of opinion that dealing in these markets is void by the common law, for, among other reasons, that it is contrary to public policy. It is not only contrary to public policy, but it is a crime. A crime against the state, a crime against the general welfare and happiness of the people, a crime of religion and morality, and a crime against all legitimate trade and business. This species of gambling has become emphatically and pre-eminently the national sin. In its proportion and extent, it is immeasurable."

And they go on and on about how horrible this activity is.

This is the Illinois Supreme Court. It is from actually 1888. And it's about grain futures, not prediction markets.

And I think the same thing is playing out.

And is this simply, I mean…

It really is as simple because we have the same structure.

And the topic never mattered under the federal law. But states misunderstood it, and they just looked at grain futures at the time as like… Because people don't understand markets. Markets have always been something that people…

They're counterintuitive.

And I always think, imagine we had banned grain futures back in the day. We would have ruinous consequences. It's today one of the bedrocks of the U.S. economy. We would not be able to function without grain futures.

And everybody benefits. I mean, there are individual winners and losers, but you get a more stable supply of food, better planting, better forecasting.

I think about 100 years from now, when there's going to be the next generation of entrepreneurs coming around and expanding the universe, they're going to be looking at this and thinking, "Imagine we didn't have a good gauge on where elections are going to land, on where geopolitics are going, the weather, the climate, the hurricanes."

And you're starting to see today, our fastest-growing segment is actually businesses hedging on Kalshi.

How do they do that?

You can take a position because you want to make money, speculate, but a lot of people take positions because they want to reduce their risk toward an event.

So the same way that grain farmers would short the price of grain so that if the price of grain goes down in six months, they would offset their revenue loss, we see a lot of businesses do the same.

So one example, we have now hundreds of businesses that do the same, it's like sports bars hedge against their home team losing every game.

Why? Because if the team wins tonight, I will make $2,000 in revenue. If it loses, I'll make $800 in sales. And my cost is the same because I have to stock up on inventory. So it's $1,200, $1,200 no matter what.

So when the Knicks win tonight, I make $800. The Knicks lose tonight, I lose $400.

Unpredictability like that is very bad for small businesses. So they buy no on the Knicks. So they short the Knicks winning in a way that essentially compensates their P&L so they're up $300 no matter what.

And why is that important? Because predictability, it's a bit like how the airlines hedge their price fluctuations, predictability helps with investment, helps them make their decisions.

Quick question before we get to why the states are bringing these suits the way they are. Does the financialization, or does the prediction marketizing of everything, does that have a corrosive effect, say, on sports?

In leagues, and this goes back to the 1919 World Series in Chicago, the Chicago White Sox famously had some players who threw it. But when everything is being bet on, everything is being speculated, does that end up undermining something fundamental?

So one, it shouldn't be everything. Two, I just want to be clear, we are not adding anything to sports. Sportsbooks have existed, like DraftKings and FanDuel, and if you see all the cases of players doing bad things, they're actually on the sportsbooks.

Can I ask what percentage of your revenue, or…?

I mean, it's like 65, 70 percent now, but it's going down. So it was 96 percent nine months ago. So it's going down very quickly because sports is a great way to educate people about probability. They get it. It's Moneyball. Our customer is the Moneyball type.

And then over time, they do politics and economics, and everything else is growing.

But I want to make a key point about this, which is very important. The notion that prediction markets all of a sudden now allow people to bet or trade on sports, it exists already. The question is, do you prefer it in an open and fair marketplace where everything is transparent, or do you prefer it in a closed marketplace where everything is opaque? That is the question.

And then I'm a pro-regulation guy, so I think there's war, terrorism, assassination, violence, wildfires, things that create moral hazards, that should not be traded on. We should not have markets on those things because the incentive is, it's too easy to go and create a fire.

But we also, as a market, we don't go… Most of the issues that you see is things…So we have standards that are more strict than the states' gambling rules around things not being very easily manipulated in the Commodity Exchange Act.

So we don't, for example, do markets on whether the next play is going to be a ball or a strike. The sportsbooks do these, and that's actually the vast majority of cheating cases, etc.

And that's also why we believe that regulation is very important, because when you set the right guardrails on what markets should be in, what markets should not be in, and how do you police those types of activities, and when you find someone that does it, how do you punish them very heavily? The last thing I'll say is we actually ban athletes from trading on anything that relates to their leagues.

I'm sorry, anything at all, or just on…?

Anything in their leagues. Yeah, the same way we ban politicians or members of Congress from trading on things that relate to Congress.

Yeah.

All of that goes into our…

That's like the only place where Congressmen can't bet on what they're about to legislate.

They can do it on the stock market, but not on Kalshi.

Kalshi was a sponsor of the U.S. Open, which is kind of interesting, and there's a growing acceptability.

And the NHL and MLB, and you're going to see a lot of other leagues.

But you've also recently you said that you are going to limit people who are abusive toward sports figures.

Yes.

Explain that, because now are you saying, as a condition of entering contracts on Kalshi, you're going to limit the speech of people? Or how does that work?

That's a great question. I mean, look, I think there are certain bad cases where, and by the way, it's not just about sports. It exists in really anything.

But I think the idea that someone… We always want to be careful about regulating the bad behaviors out of the system. And I believe that. I'm a very free markets guy, but I do believe in sensible guardrails. I do. And we may disagree on that point.

My view is the highway should be wide enough for people to compete and thrive and do all the great things you're going to do. You have to have a fence at the end of the highway to make sure people are not driving themselves off the cliff.

And I think it needs to be very delicate and needs to be very careful. You don't want to make the highway one car at a time because that's terrible. And so in this specific case, you have issues sometimes where people get over their skis and they go and harass…

Yeah, I mean, if you lose $2,000 or $10,000 or $200 because somebody dumps the fifth set at the U.S. Open, you're probably going to yell at the person who lost.

Yeah, yelling is one thing. Harassing and following them online and doing all the weird stuff that sometimes… And by the way, we haven't seen any evidence of that happening on Kalshi. That has historically happened on the online sportsbooks and some of the other mechanisms. I just want to be ahead of it. I don't like that idea.

Ok, so then here, is there any… When the state of Arizona says, "Ok, you're like a gambling operation, you're like the Mafia coming in and you're running this billions of dollars," New York is doing something similar.

In New York state, I think on a typical sportsbook, they take 51 percent of gross revenue. They make a lot of money by taxing and regulating this, and obviously they want money from you. Is there any other reason that they're doing this?

The casino lobby. I mean, the casino lobby is… The foundational thing is a few things.

So when an incumbent gets threatened competitively from a challenger, what does the incumbent usually do?

Go to the government.

It's litigate, then legislate, and then finally, when you realize that this is here to stay, you innovate, right? That's the basic 101. It's always been par for the course.

And why? Because incumbents, inevitably, when you get big enough, you want less competition. That's what you really want. And that's what's been playing out here.

And by the way, it's not just about sports. We launched perpetual futures recently, and CME, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Board of Trade, sued us over it.

And usually the policy argument is never, "I'm losing some revenue due to competition." It's like you come up with a bunch of reasons, like, "Oh, it's too risky. It's too whatever," so they can get policymakers riled up.

And they usually have very orchestrated lobbies and comms functions that do these sorts of things.

But if we look at it foundationally, first, it's interesting. We have zero evidence of cannibalization between what we are doing and the gaming companies, but also the sportsbooks. Why? Because my core customer is a trader. It's the guy who has 17 monitors and like is doing math and stats, and that's 70, 80 percent of my volume. That person is banned in the sports world.

Ok, yeah.

Right? Because they're making money.

I mean, so do you think people are using Kalshi to make money, or is it a form of entertainment? Because casinos and sports betting is really entertainment…

Do you think some people use options in the stock market as a form of entertainment, like on Robinhood?

Yeah, I suspect that.

I mean, on Robinhood, for sure.

But there's a great, actually from Illinois, that was more recent actually, like a week or two ago, which is saying that just because something— financial, these prediction markets are swaps, they're financial instruments, they just happen to be fun.

And that's not… Fun is not a problem because when you look at the grain futures market, I always go back because the parallels are so clear, 95 percent of the transactions are speculative.

Sometimes I get farmers having fun. They're gambling, speculating on something.

But the key thing here is that you can win on Kalshi. The bulk is people who are doing sophisticated things, and it's a more sophisticated market.

What is the percentage overall of winners versus losers?

It's a zero-sum game. It's like the stock market or active trading in the stock market.

I'll ask you this question this way: How many hedge funds outperform the S&P every year?

Yeah, I mean, in a given year, I don't know how many.

What do you think is a number, roughly?

Uh, 50 percent?

50? It's like 20.

Ok.

It's amazing. Like 20 percent of hedge funds win. Yeah, like 20 to 30 percent—

And then over time, none of them do.

No, there are, I mean, there are big winners like Citadel and Renaissance. That are like really big winners.

Why? Because competition. Competitions are hard, right? Imagine that number was 50. What should that tell us? If it was 50-50, 50 percent win, 50 percent lose, it would just be a game of chance. There's no skill in this thing.

Anything that has skill, like how many people win the NBA Finals in their careers? It's a very small subset because competitive environments require skill, and when that happens, you're going to have…

So how are you…?

So the answer is actually, if 80 percent of hedge funds lose on the stock market, our numbers are closer to 60, 65 percent of people losing, which is actually more of an equalizer.

Because the one thing we see on Kalshi is actually a much larger diversity of people end up being winners. If you look at our top performers, 79 percent of them went to public school. Our top traders, they're 2x more likely to have worked in retail than worked on Wall Street.

It's kind of amazing if you think about it.

Our best inflation forecaster is a random guy in Kansas who's never traded in the financial markets, just likes…

How does he do it, then? Do you know?

He's read about the economy for 20 years, loves reading about it, very, very calibrated. He's been thinking about it a lot.

And this goes back to Hayek and Tetlock. It's the idea that information and knowledge sits anywhere. They're not sitting with the elites.

And by the way, the Federal Reserve put out a paper in February. It's called "Kalshi and the Rise of Macro Markets."

They compared the Wall Street forecasts, the Bloomberg, on inflation, economy, GDP growth, unemployment, against the Kalshi forecasts for those things, which is Main Street—- Wall Street vs. Main Street.

And the result was actually Main Street was more accurate than Wall Street, and it's also real time. We move in real time.

So is your strategy, obviously you're fighting lawsuits, but is it ultimately like you're going to come up with a number that you say to New York state and Arizona, and you say, "We're not going to give you 51 percent of gross revenue," but do you keep working until you get to a point where they're like, "Ok, we'll live with it"?

I mean, I like to take the optimistic view of things, which is I think there are some people who just don't understand it. So part of it is we're just sitting down and explaining what I just explained.

Right, right.

Because the superficial view on prediction markets, like any markets, it's always the same. Society has always had an affect reaction to prediction markets. It comes around, and they're like, "That feels like gambling. It feels wrong.

It's either random or it's rigged," right?

Exactly. It's either random or it's rigged, and it's financialization of stuff.

Not because they're bad or good, just because they are hard to understand. And when you explain it more and it gets a little bit more normalized, people, "Oh, that's actually pretty cool."

And you always see it. When I start with a meeting and I end with a meeting, the opinions on this go, "Oh, actually, it can make us think about the future a little bit better. It could depolarize us because now people are thinking more instead of saying stupid things on Twitter."

Clearly, you're not describing any meetings that you've had with the New York State Department.

Well, I mean, look, I can't speak about specific meetings, but my point is, over time, it requires education. There are parts that don't understand, parts that, yeah, there are lobby groups and casinos that are pushing really hard to protect their turf. Or I don't even think they're protecting it. They're not getting cannibalized. I think their view is like, "Oh, it's a big industry. We should have it, too." It's a little bit that sort of thing.

The thing that they're misunderstanding is that this cannot exist state by state.

Why not?

Because, you know…

Ok, because gambling does. And I know you make a big distinction.

With gambling, you go against the house, and you bet against the house. It's localized. That's fine.

But I'm a peer-to-peer market. You don't want the Californians to trade only against Californians, and Texas…

Again, why is New York… Do you prefer a national New York Stock Exchange or 50 different…?

I'm a citizen of the world. So, yeah.

But the point is, exchanges are peer-to-peer, and they require liquidity. They require a large diversity.

It's like Marketplace, Airbnb. Imagine eBay. You can only buy the bag that you want from people in the same state. That doesn't make any sense. You want diversity. The more diverse the participation, the more information, the more it works.

Why do you think prediction markets, and obviously there have been prediction markets probably for as long as humans have had language…

You know what the first one was, right?

I don't.

Pope elections.

Oh, ok.

In the 1400s.

Ok. Yeah, and well, Intrade, which was a predecessor, which was another business, or got run out of business in 2013, was very good at predicting who was going to be pope.

But why does it seem to be exploding now in popularity? Is it that the tech got better? Is it that people have more money?

I think it's two things. One, we approached it from a regulatory-first approach. I always wanted to create a financial market and broaden it into more things.

Prediction markets are just the financial markets. They're just on a different topic. That's it. People are complexifying this.

But the second thing is, when I started in 2018, I think the demand is because, I think it's the polarization that's happening in the country.

And we feel like there's more information than ever, but less truth than ever. Because the filters, the things that are filtering our information, are biased. They're partisan, they're extreme, they're polarized.

The social media algorithms, and you see, you look at two different Twitter feeds and they look entirely different. People have different conceptions of the truth, of what's happening on the ground.

Because if you write seven paragraphs of thoughtful analysis on Twitter, you get two likes. If you write something crazy, like something racist or something ludicrous, just straight-up stupid, you get 10,000 likes.

Because it's clickbaity. It's like the 10-second Reel on Instagram.

I was like, there will need to be, there was going to be a lot of demand for a source of information where the filtering mechanism is very transparent and it's very aligned with truth.

And that's markets.

We used to always joke, when I did my master's at MIT, and I was doing a Ph.D. or working on Wall Street are mostly the same thing, except that you have to be right on Wall Street. You have to do analysis in both.

But my point here is about the incentive structure of the prediction market. It's very, very simple. The seven-paragraph thoughtful analysis probably makes money, and the stupid, extreme takes probably lose money. And all you have to trust is that people like making money and they dislike losing money. That's it.

It's interesting to me that, Kalshi, you were born in California, but you grew up in Lebanon. Your co-founder was born and raised in Brazil.

Can we read anything into that, that these are the two founders, people from countries that are peripheral to, in a way, certainly to America, but kind of to the global economy?

I just think it's naive. It's like the American dream.

I mean, my mom, when we… So I was born in California, moved back to Lebanon. My mom, I grew up with a single mom, and she's kind of a tiger mom. Not kind of. She was very much a tiger.

It would be a lion, right, in Lebanon?

In Lebanon, it would be a lion.

But the whole thing was, like, "You have to go back to the U.S. because that's a country that will, if you have good ideas and you're smart and you work hard," and she knew I was always, like, a math nerd…"You're going to make it, it will reward you for doing that."

And she was right.

She was a ballerina, but also a lot of similar sort of thinking in our household.

And we showed up here, and we're so excited. There are so many different things you can build, and you can challenge the status quo. It's a country that lets you challenge the status quo in a way that no other country lets you.

And that's amazing. That's something we should really cherish, and like keep….

Do you worry about that? I mean, again, we're in New York, which elected a democratic socialist as mayor. You have Donald Trump Jr. as a special adviser. Who you hired, or you announced, a week before the inauguration of Donald Trump Sr. in a second term…

That's not right. That's actually what happened.

Ok. Well, I mean, the press release went out, I think

I don't know, but we actually had done it before the elections. It was not a political decision.

Well, what I'm getting at, though, is that MAGA, Donald Trump has nationalized the economy or socialized it in ways that were unthinkable since FDR.

So on both sides of the aisle, we seem to be pulling away from free market ideology or belief in free markets or belief that America is a place where you can define yourself.

But the people on the left say, "No, you're defined by who your parents were, what race you belong to, what gender or sexual minority." People on the right want to kick out people like you, right? I mean, they don't want Middle Easterners coming to America, even if you're an American citizen.

So, I mean, look, I…

So are you worried about the America that you've moved back to?

Yes, I am worried. I don't think it's necessarily a political thing. I just think it is a structural thing that's happening in the economy that we have to kind of contend with.

I'm 30, so I was going through school like 10 years ago, and when I was going through school, there was still this energy. People were excited. They were pumped. They wanted to build, they wanted to do things, they wanted to start companies.

And my cousin now is going to Columbia, and you don't feel that energy anymore. That, to me, is the most concerning part.

Where did it go?

I think part of it is there is structural changes happening that society is battling, where there's AI, there is wealth disparity that's being created that is extreme.

And then that is also not… When I think about free markets, I always say the foundation of free markets is everybody needs to have a shot in the competition, right? Everybody needs the same rules, the same rights, and the same obligations.

And if people stop believing that, the competition is tilted. The competition is not a level playing field. I think that's kind of an opposite view to fair markets.

And I'm not here to say, look, the solution is simple. But I think we would argue that capitalism is a good thing, but what we need to contend with and be aware of is that a lot of people are not part of it. They don't feel like they're part of it.

And that's a reality. That's a truth on the ground that we cannot just…

Is it that they're not part of it, or is it that they don't feel they're part of it?

It's equivalent, though.

Yeah. I mean, because one of the arguments about social media, which clearly has a lot to do with this type of stuff, is that the median household income, the median individual income in America, is at all-time highs. It keeps going up, despite the financial crisis, despite COVID, despite geopolitical Sturm und Drang.

But people feel like, "I'm not getting as much as Donald Trump Jr. has, so I feel ripped off," even if they're doing better. I mean, is it important to know what the narrative is and what the facts on the ground are?

And frankly, I do think, because I don't want this to sound partisan, I do think it's bipartisan. I think people on both sides…

Yeah, no, I agree with you completely.

And we engage. Kalshi has engaged. People have talked about Don. We have advisers on the other side of the aisle, Democrats, across the board. And I frankly talk equally to Republicans and Democrats. And there is a lot of thought on both sides about how do we deal with this?

And my view is we may be being a little bit too ideological about capitalism versus socialism.

And to me, it's more like, I think most people would agree that we want a free, competitive economy. We want people to have a shot. We want people to feel part of the system.

And my view is a little bit more practical. It's like, "Look, if the wealth inequality is too out of whack, we need a little bit of a dampening mechanism. Just bring it back."

Is that mechanism, is it heavy taxation? Is it regulation that prevents the formation of new businesses? Is it…?

I don't think we should ever prevent or slow down innovation or prevent the formation of new businesses. My view is more that we need to think about ways to bring the people who feel they're out of the system into the system.

There are simple, kind of naive ways to think of it. I always think, could you have the most successful companies in America, or the rising top 200 tech companies, take a small 1 or 2 percent of their stock, voluntarily?

And I do believe, actually, you sit down with a big enough group of founders and give it to, let's call it whatever, you can define a set of households in America and put it in their children's accounts.

And the thing I love about that idea is all of a sudden people feel, they understand, actually, ok, AI, space, tech, fintech, all these different things that feel completely distant and far removed from you right now, they're tangible.

And it's actually, oh, it moves up over time. And as we're creating value as a society, we're doing the thing that America does: innovate, push the boundaries, take risks. There's tangible value that basically accrues over time.

And to me, it's like we don't need to… Capitalism, it's too much ideology versus, how about the middle ground? Let's make sure we bring people along. And it's not going to hurt the very top that much to do a little bit on the margin.

So you're facing a huge amount of regulatory uncertainty. There's also a huge amount of political uncertainty that's kind of bigger than that.

My view is all companies, tech companies, are facing a lot of that. AI as well…

Well, and technological uncertainty, all of this kind of stuff. But for the midterms, is there an outcome that is better for Kalshi or worse?

I'm frankly, not sure. The idiom is like, "Well, what are you going to do when the Democrats take over?"

And I don't know. Frankly, the internal view is, to me, we've built relationships on both sides. I found actually there's a big group of people on both sides that actually are largely are where we are, which raises my second point.

Who are some of the Democrats? I mean, I think I know some of the Republicans, but many of them are anti-prediction market. But who are some of the…?

I know, it's many. I mean, I think there are some on both sides of the aisle, but I think there's a big group on both sides that is actually pro.

But without naming names, to me, the thing that we're really focused on is what we've been focused on from day one.

We're a company that spent the first four years of our company getting regulated upfront, which is very unusual for Silicon Valley. It's very, very unusual.

And I always say I'm pro-sensible regulation. Banning something is not a form of regulation. It's actually the ultimate deregulation because you're moving it offshore, and you're just closing your eyes and letting it go crazy. And that's what happened with crypto. We banned a bunch of stuff onshore, it went offshore, and people lost their money.

To me, it's always be sound on policy, truly. Try to actually, let's put the ideology aside. Let's actually get it right and communicate that over and over and educate what is right.

And I always say there are certain types of markets that shouldn't exist because those are moral hazards that could create issues. Like the military strike market should not have existed. And we never did it because we're regulated in the U.S., but no one should be able to do it.

Number two is ban insider trading. We have to, because if there's a privileged set that has access that the rest of America does not have, that ruins the markets over time. It destroys trust in the system. We don't want that.

And three, sensible guardrails. There's going to be irresponsible use for any of these products, whether you're trading options on Robinhood or crypto on Coinbase.

Or you're going to the neighborhood bar. You want somebody to send you home when you've had too much.

That's right. Most people who drink alcohol, it's fine. It's great, actually. It is a social lubricant. I mean, there's a small percentage, sub-1 percent, that end up destroying their lives. You want to regulate that out of the system. I believe in that.

And it's like any technology. You have upsides, the steam engine, and then you have your carbon dioxide emissions. Regulation reduces the emissions and optimizes the upside.

And it's always delicate. It has to be delicate and balanced. But it's usually not the best thing for getting a bunch of clicks on social media, right? That's the…Policymaking is boring.

So about 15 years ago, or I think it was 2013, Intrade, an Irish-based prediction market, was regulated out of existence in the U.S.

They were unregulated.

Ok. Well, they were, but they had a CFTC license.

No, they didn't.

Oh, ok.

So we're the first to have gotten the CFTC…That's the difference.

That's the difference. Thank you.

But what would you put the odds on of you, in five years, Kalshi being bigger than ever and in a clear regulatory market, or…?

I think they're very high. They're very, very high. I mean, we have 30 million customers in the market, right? I mean, it's very big.

And again, the choice is, if you were to ask me whether prediction markets exist in five years, that's 100 percent.

Yeah, of course.

Because it's not a question of whether they're going to exist or not. It's just whether we're going to regulate them the right way.

You think they will be legal and public and transparent.

Certainly, yes. I mean, I think it's because they're here. I think the question is now, do we regulate it? Do we add the sensible guardrails? Do we just drive it offshore and close our eyes?

But I think usually, again, time is with us because even if you compare it today versus six months ago, way more people understand it. There's much less energy than before.

And the one thing I'll say, the media, you know this, the media just loves the scandals. When the insider trade happened on Maduro, that was like a three-month cycle. It was never-ending, right?

That's what all people would hear about it. And they wouldn't say Polymarket, they'd say prediction markets. They would lump us in.

But it's going to take some time for people to understand that actually, that was a one-off. There are like 30 million customers who are using these things. And yes, there's some bad in any system, and we're going to have to regulate it, but the positives are exciting.

Because to me, you're seeing now, we have thousands of businesses that rely on this.

I mean, people in the Keys around hurricane season start calling in and buying yes on hurricanes in their town because insurance companies don't insure their homes anymore. We have so many insurance use cases that are proliferating right now on sports, on weather, on esoteric things.

Like, there's this bill. I don't know if you saw the story about the goat herder in California. There's a bill in the legislature that was being passed that was going to move. He has 3,000 goats, move goat-herding wages from $70,000 to $40,000, which is going to drive him out of business.

He started calling insurance companies to underwrite this risk. They're like, "We're not going to. I mean, this is crazy."

And so he came to us, and we set up a market. Within two or three hours, the market said there's a 10 percent chance of it happening. Then he bought a $50,000 hedge that would pay out $500,000 if the bad thing happens, and it happened.

So now he has the war chest to go and diversify his business and stay afloat and all that. More of that is basically going to happen.

I guess a final question is, are the lawsuits against you at the state level or at the nonfederal level, is that going to require a Supreme Court decision, do you think?

You know, I just think, for us…

Because the Supreme Court has, I mean, some of these suits are proceeding, so you have a legal argument, which strikes me as pretty solid, but I'm not a lawyer. But is it going to take a Supreme Court decision? I don't know what this is all…

I think maybe. I mean, I think that we'll see. I think there are a lot of things that are in flux because some of the courts where we lost, it was based on a rule that has been changed now.

There are a number of new rules that are regulated that the federal agency, the CFTC, has put forth now. So that's kind of changed. It invalidates a lot of these opinions for good reason.

So it's a bit of a reset that's going to happen.

How important is the actual head of the CFTC to your future?

It's very important, but these things, it's like a push and pull, and some people may disagree with this regulator, right?

My point is that Congress explicitly gave the authority to the CFTC to regulate market structure this way, no matter what the topic is. That's really the law.

And they even say if something is gaming, which you can say the sports game is a game, the CFTC can decide what to do with it. That's the law, and they can decide to allow it and regulate it in a certain way.

You may disagree with the regulations. Some people tell me, well, maybe they're not stiff enough on this or not stiff enough on that.

But that's why you have the separation of powers. Congress delegated their authority to the agency. If you're unhappy with the agency, there may be a shift in two years. There'll be another agency that might be more strict or more loose.

And that's the natural, it's par for the course, natural course of history.

But to me, it's like, as we learn and as data surfaces, as we understand these things better, the better for us. Because the truth and the data is on our side. The best way to tell a good story is to have a good one, and I think we have a good one.

All right. We're going to leave it there. Tarek Mansour of Kalshi, thanks so much.

The post Are Prediction Markets Just Gambling? Kalshi CEO Responds appeared first on Reason Magazine.

New Lows

2026-10-21T13:32:40Z

We're two weeks out from midterms, and President Donald Trump's approval rating just hit a new low. Per a New York Times/Siena University poll, "36 percent of likely voters said that they approved of Mr. Trump's performance, while 59 percent said that they disapproved," which makes that the president's "lowest approval rating recorded in any Times/Siena poll." Yikes.

The likely voters say that cost-of-living, the war in Iran, and gas prices are the primary reasons why they're frustrated with the Trump administration.

Ohio's race gets nasty: The governor's race, between Republican Vivek Ramaswamy and Democrat Amy Acton, somehow got even dirtier when a video started circulating, gaining traction earlier this week, showing Acton's estranged mother calling her daughter a "liar."

The ad does not show who made or financed it, and the Ramaswamy campaign was slow to take responsibility for it. But late yesterday, that campaign confirmed that it was responsible for the ad and would spend millions to air it all over the state.

"Amy has a serious problem. She is a liar," said her mother in the video. "She's lied her entire life. My daughter needs help."

"Don't vote for people who lie," continued her mother. "Don't let her become your governor. If you think she'll make your life better, you're fooling yourself. It will only get worse."

The gubernatorial candidate's family history appears to be rather tragic: "Acton's campaign provided extensive documentation, from court records and contemporary reports in local media, that corroborated her account that she and her brother were removed from their mother's home after her second husband, Cledith Arthur, was arrested and indicted in 1978 and charged with rape of 'Amy Stearns being less than thirteen (13) years of age,'" per The Washington Post. It appears that Acton's mother took the side of her husband, not her daughter; Acton's biological father was the one who reported the sexual abuse by the stepfather to law enforcement. Her brother said in a statement that "our birth mother stayed married to Amy's rapist until he died." Amy Acton appears to have no relationship with her mother.

It's not clear why Ramaswamy and other Republicans who've visited the state, campaigning on Ramaswamy's behalf, feel the need to stoop so low. Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, recently implied that Acton is a drunk. The race is extremely tight, but that's still no reason to drag Acton's rape-victim past and family drama into the mix. I wonder whether this ad could have the opposite effect to what was intended: Acton seems impressively resilient in the face of trying circumstances, and Ramaswamy's team just looks rather desperate, trotting out a person who seems to be a terrible mother and an unreliable source to attempt to sink the Acton campaign.

I like Vivek and think a lot of the smears against him are unfair. He is very intelligent and highlights real policy problems. But his latest ad exploiting the abusive mother of Amy Acton disgusts me. This woman was so horrible she lost custody of her at age 12.

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) October 20, 2026

Another possible take: The Ohio voters struggling with high cost-of-living might be put off by all of this; really gross mudslinging at the expense of talking about real kitchen-table issues.

Scenes from New York: "Federal, state and city investigators searched about a dozen adult day care centers in New York City on Tuesday, focused in part on operators who they believe fraudulently billed Medicaid for clients who received no services or were dead, three people with knowledge of the matter said," reports The New York Times. "The searches came as the Trump administration is focusing on investigating accusations of fraud at adult and child day care centers, often underscoring what it says is wrongdoing in Democratic-controlled states. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was with investigators at one or more of the search locations on Tuesday, according to two of the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss a law enforcement matter." I am fully in support of stamping out Medicare and Medicaid fraud and deploying lots of federal government resources to do so.

QUICK HITS

"The public is hotly debating whether AI is a normal technology—something that will transform our world like the internet did—or more like the arrival of postindustrial modernity to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the 1950s: something that vaporized a culture overnight," writes Kelsey Piper for The Argument. "The third option is that AI is more like the rise of humanity as seen from the perspective of livestock animals. (In this scenario, AIs are the humans, and we are the animals whose fate will make no sense to us.) Anthropic believes that the second possibility is already baked in, and it's hoping to prevent the third—but its plan for preventing that looks more like hope and guesswork than something we should trust it with." I agree with pretty much every worry Piper expresses in the piece.
"President Donald Trump said he has committed more than $400 million to help Republicans in the midterms, including $300 million already spent on advertising, contacting voters, holding rallies and other efforts," reports The Washington Post. Republicans seem to believe you can just outspend and that you don't necessarily need to draft compelling candidates. Interesting theory.
The Wall Street Journal has a good piece on Anthropic's draft prospectus ahead of its possible IPO next month.
The expats who fled America regret it.
The welfare state as it currently stands should be dismantled:

In DC, a family with a housing voucher can rent a 3-bedroom apartment for up to $5,301, which is significantly higher than the market rent in even the most expensive DC neighborhoods. pic.twitter.com/CwnYwjItA4

— Kevin Corinth (@kevincorinth) October 20, 2026

The post New Lows appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Grassroots Revolt Targets Unpopular Property Taxes

2026-10-21T11:00:52Z

If you have to pay a regular fee to maintain control and use of a home or other parcel of property, do you really own it? Or are you just renting it from whoever collects the money? That's the question behind a growing movement against property taxes, which is winning support across the country and may see its next big test in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment on the Florida ballot that would significantly trim taxes on owner-occupied homes.

'Property Is the Foundation of Liberty'—and a Big Source of Tax Revenue

Advocates of reform understandably champion the inviolability of private property, which is threatened by continuously rising levies. Opponents predictably include people who fear reduced government revenues, but also those who worry that cutting property taxes will shift power to state governments at the cost of local autonomy.

"Property is the foundation of liberty," argues economist Vance Ginn. "It represents the right to the product of voluntary exchange, investment, and saving—not a privilege granted by government. To tax property again every year after it has been bought with after-tax income is to deny genuine ownership. Property taxes operate like an annual wealth tax or unrealized capital-gains tax, applied regardless of income or ability to pay."

Opposing Ginn's argument in the debate is the Tax Foundation's Jared Walczak, who is not so much a fan of property taxes as a believer that they suck less than the alternatives.

"Spending restraint can reduce property tax burdens," argues Walczak. "But with property taxes accounting for 70 percent of local tax collections nationwide and upwards of 90 percent in some states, any discussion of property tax elimination must grapple with revenue alternatives."

"It is axiomatic that whatever you tax, you get less of," he adds. "Taxing income means less income-producing labor and investment, for instance. But because land is an immobile asset, taxing property does less to distort market decisions than taxing income or even sales."

Walczak also points out that while property taxes are usually imposed by local governments, most alternatives to property taxes come at the state level. That would move power further up the political food chain, away from the property owners worrying about their tax bills.

To this, Ginn responds that governments at all levels cost more than they should and that "the moral and fiscal failure of property taxes lies not only in how the money is raised, but also in how much government spends."

That means the debate over property taxes isn't just a struggle between those who want to trim the state's take and those who prefer larger government, but also between anti-tax activists and their frequent allies among advocates of local power. In a piece this week on the groundswell against property taxes, Politico's Liam Dillon notes that "the uprising's most pitched battles are being fought in Red States where the issue has emerged as yet another dividing line on the right."

Localities Are Dependent on Taxing Property

The debate over property taxes is fierce partially because governments have come to rely so heavily on them. "In fiscal year 2023, property taxes comprised 28.9 percent of total state and local tax collections in the United States, more than any other source of tax revenue, despite being levied almost exclusively at the local (not state) level," Janelle Fritts wrote for the Tax Foundation.

Property taxes in the U.S. range from roughly half a percent to just under 2 percent of assessed home value. States that rely most heavily on them, like New Hampshire (1.5 percent in 2024) and Texas (1.4 percent in 2024), also tend to leave a lot of government responsibility in local hands that might be exercised at the state level elsewhere. It's worth noting that Cato's Freedom in the 50 States ranks New Hampshire as having the second least burdensome tax regime among states, with Texas in fourth place.

The lowest taxed states in property terms are Alabama (0.37 percent in 2024), Arizona (0.48 percent), Hawaii (0.29 percent), and Utah (0.48 percent). Some states, such as Illinois (1.88 percent in 2024) and New Jersey (also 1.88 percent), tax the hell out of many things to support large and intrusive governments. Hawaii, despite low property taxes, is ranked as the most tax-burdened state by Cato.

As mentioned above, economists tend to like property taxes because they are efficient, minimally distort economic decisions, and empower localities relative to state and federal authorities. But as Politico's Dillon emphasizes, "everyone who is not an economist seems to hate property taxes."

Homeowners Don't Like the Insecurity That Comes With Property Tax Bills

Property taxes rise with assessed property valuations that homeowners have no control over, as the market shifts with supply and demand. They require what feels an awful lot like an annual rent payment to keep a roof over people's heads many already paid for. That reduces the sense of security that owners feel in their homes, since their habitation remains conditional on meeting local authorities' demands. The bite of sales taxes can be reduced by buying less, and income taxes are dependent on earning paychecks, but property taxes (with some local exceptions) come due no matter what.

Soaring property valuations in recent years drove property tax bills higher for Americans who did nothing but remain at their established addresses, though localities can and sometimes do adjust tax rates to offset rising values. USA Today reported that "between 2019 and 2023, the median value of annual property taxes increased nearly 25%." That has energized the movement to cut or abolish the taxes.

Efforts to reform property taxes have been effective in more than a dozen states, according to Governing. Most of these efforts involved reducing taxes, though eyes are currently on Florida where Amendment 3, a proposed change to the state constitution, would incrementally raise the homestead exemption to $250,000. It also would require "the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value," effectively abolishing property taxes on owner-occupied dwellings.

As a constitutional amendment, the measure requires 60 percent of votes to pass. Polling shows more support than opposition, but not necessarily at the supermajority level necessary for victory.

According to the Tax Foundation, in Florida, "the statewide average sales tax rate would have to rise from 7.02 to 15.34 percent to replace the property tax" with equivalent revenue. Rates could widely vary if localities implemented sales taxes instead of leaving them to the state.

Of course, that assumes state and local governments continue spending and providing services at the same level. But as economist Ginn points out, the problem lies not only in how property taxes raise money "but also in how much government spends." If the property tax revolt represents revulsion not just at the tax, but at the expense of large government, that may require less revenue to fund a smaller Leviathan.

The post Grassroots Revolt Targets Unpopular Property Taxes appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Today in Supreme Court History: October 21, 1919

2026-10-21T11:00:22Z

10/21/1919: Abrams v. United States argued.

The White Court (1916-1921)

The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 21, 1919 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Atlanta's Former Mayor Is Running for Georgia Governor. The 2020 Protests Could Cost Her the Race.

2026-10-21T10:30:34Z

When Americans vote in the midterm elections next month, it seems likely that Democrats will see decisive victories across the country.

This trend seems likely to affect Georgia's two most high-profile races differently. Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, is running for reelection against Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican who represents the state's 10th congressional district, while in the race to replace Gov. Brian Kemp, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms faces Republican billionaire Rick Jackson.

Ossoff and Bottoms may both be Democrats, but their prospects look very different: A recent poll put Ossoff nearly seven points ahead of Collins, but Bottoms was a point and a half behind Jackson, trailing the senator from her own party by more than five points.

Democrats hope that if Ossoff does well enough, it will boost their other candidates. But it's worth asking why Bottoms, who was feted as a possible vice presidential candidate, is struggling to break even against someone with no prior name recognition, in a year expected to be a boon for her party.

It's possible that the crime and protests of 2020 could be weighing down Bottoms' candidacy in an otherwise auspicious year for Democrats.

Mayor Bottoms and the 'COVID Crime Wave'

Bottoms' single term as mayor of Georgia's capital city would be defined by summer 2020. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, violent crime rose across the country, but it was worse in Atlanta—homicides were up 59 percent, while most other cities averaged 33 percent. Bottoms herself later called it the "COVID crime wave."

Then on May 25 in Minneapolis, a police officer killed George Floyd, an unarmed black man accused of passing a counterfeit $20 bill. Footage went viral, and protesters across the country took to the streets.

In some places, including Atlanta, protests turned destructive, and the police responded in kind.

Bottoms called for peace. "If you care about this city, then go home," she exhorted rioters in a news conference. "When you burn down this city, you're burning down our community."

She won bipartisan praise. "Your passion, your composure, your balance, has been really incredible," then-presidential candidate Joe Biden told her.

But just days later, Atlanta police officers shot and killed a black man, Rayshard Brooks, in a Wendy's parking lot. Protesters gathered the next day and burned the restaurant to the ground.

Meanwhile, after the district attorney announced charges against the cops involved in Brooks' shooting, more than 170 officers called out sick in protest. Bottoms admitted that officer morale "is down tenfold."

Then on July 4, less than half a mile away from the site of Brooks' death, protesters shot into a car, killing 8-year-old Secoriea Turner.

The crime spike persisted into 2021, and in May of that year, Bottoms announced that she would not run for a second term.

Officially, she said, it was "time to pass the baton on to someone else," though her announcement "came as the city faces a homicide rate topping that of this time last year—a historically deadly one in Atlanta," Henri Hollis wrote at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Indeed, it seems the "COVID crime wave" had caught up with her: A September 2021 poll found that while 57 percent of city residents approved of the job she was doing, 53 percent also felt the city was on the wrong track, including 48 percent of Democrats. The top issue was crime, which 70 percent of respondents felt was headed in the wrong direction.

She later told New York that by stepping down, she was "putting my emotional and mental health first"—a worthy reason, though a bit odd since she now seeks an even higher office.

Then again, she also had higher aspirations. Bottoms was one of the first officeholders to endorse Biden for president in 2020, and she later made his shortlist of potential running mates. After the end of her term, she joined Biden's White House as director of the Office of Public Engagement, after which she moved over to the President's Export Council for the remainder of his term.

Bottoms announced her run for governor just four months after leaving Washington. And while she locked up the Democratic nomination easily, winning 56 percent of the vote among seven candidates, she didn't exactly fire up the base, and it seems like she just expected to coast to victory.

"It feels a lot like she gained the nomination…largely from name identification," progressive journalist Zaid Jilani tells Reason. "She really wasn't raising that much money or spending that much on television….It should be a high-profile race in many ways, but the ideas she's putting forward are fairly rehashed," and "she doesn't have that much creative advertising."

Rick Jackson's Deep Pockets and Shallow Record

Rick Jackson, meanwhile, seemed to come out of nowhere.

President Donald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones in August 2025, and Jones led the Republican primary field at the end of that year.

While Kemp famously resisted Trump's efforts to subvert Georgia's presidential election results in 2020, Jones was a willing participant in the scheme.

"I've been the Trump guy since 2015, not '16," Jones bragged. "I've taken all the battle scars and everything else. I know who ran and hid during 2020 and everything else."

Then in February 2026, just three months before the primary, Jackson entered the race. He was a septuagenarian with no name recognition, but he was also quite wealthy, so he blanketed the state with ads to introduce himself to voters.

In six weeks, he spent over $30 million—"more than any candidate has ever spent in a primary race for Georgia governor, with more than two months before the May 19 election," wrote Jeff Amy of the Associated Press.

It worked: Jackson beat Jones in a primary runoff with 53 percent of the vote. By then, he had spent $108 million on his campaign while raising less than $400,000 from donors.

Jackson has made much of his background, as a child of poverty who entered the foster system at age 13 to escape a dysfunctional household. As an adult, he started in sales and worked his way up to entrepreneurship, starting Jackson Healthcare in 2000 and growing it to more than $1 billion in annual revenues. He is also a generous donor to charitable causes, particularly those relating to foster care.

But with no political record, Jackson can be hard to pin down on certain issues.

For example, one Jackson ad criticizes Bottoms for the rise of data centers in Atlanta, even though he has also spoken positively of their economic potential.

Georgia Democrats have tarred Jackson as a Trumpian election denier, singling out a comment he made at a campaign event: When asked if the 2020 election was stolen, Jackson replied, "That was totally ridiculous what happened in 2020 and our people really let us down." ("Just as Governor Kemp did, Rick acknowledges both Biden's win and that there were issues in the 2020 election that needed to be resolved in order to ensure Georgians have faith in our electoral system," a campaign spokesperson told CNN.)

During the primaries, he even took heat from both sides on abortion: Jones accused Jackson's company of working with Planned Parenthood, while Jackson himself seemed to suggest he wanted to change the state's abortion ban to remove exceptions for rape or incest. ("Rick believes we have a strong pro-life law in place and he wants to keep it as it is," his campaign said in a statement.)

And while he made Trump-like pledges, like to "make Georgia No. 1 in the nation for criminal deportations" and keep "the religion of woke ideology" out of schools, his platform calls for an "intelligent Medicaid expansion" in the state.

Jackson has also pivoted just over the course of the campaign.

He bragged in his campaign announcement video that he "donated a million bucks to Trump," and he's said that if elected, he would be "just like" Trump but "with a southern tone."

He said Trump had "no bigger supporter" than himself, and he could not name a single Trump policy he disagreed with. When Trump endorsed Jackson at a campaign rally in July, the candidate pointed to the president and said, "I'm going to be this man's favorite governor."

But like many other Republicans, Jackson has distanced himself from the president, whose approval rating is at an all-time low. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that in campaign appearances, Jackson has stopped mentioning Trump directly, preferring to compare himself to Kemp, the sitting governor who remains popular.

He apparently also scrubbed all mentions of the president from his campaign website.

But one thing that has remained consistent in Jackson's campaign strategy is criticizing Bottoms' record as mayor.

Will the 'COVID Crime Wave' Sink Bottoms?

Some of Jackson's campaign ads feature grateful children who grew up in foster care and benefited from his philanthropy, but for the most part, they have targeted Bottoms over her record.

One ad, titled "Disaster," paints Bottoms' tenure as exactly that, with the city becoming practically unlivable during summer 2020.

"Keisha ended cash bail, gutted the corrections budget, let Atlanta burn, and unleashed a crime wave," Jackson wrote on X to accompany another ad. "Then she walked away."

"If Keisha wants to run from her record," according to a campaign email, "we're going to make sure Georgia remembers exactly what that record was."

Many Jackson ads, flyers, and mailers have featured images of Secoriea Turner, the 8-year-old girl killed by gunfire. (Turner's parents have asked Jackson's campaign to stop.)

But is it fair to blame everything on Bottoms? While Atlanta was worse than most, many major cities saw large homicide spikes: Chicago's murder rate climbed more than 50 percent that year, while New York City's went up nearly 40 percent. Murders in Columbus, Ohio, rose a staggering 67 percent.

Regardless, Bottoms was in charge at the time. And the attacks do seem to have an effect, as she's locked in a dead heat against Jackson.

Granted, Bottoms was never a particularly strong candidate. When she ran for mayor in 2017, she won the runoff election by fewer than 800 votes, even with the endorsement of the outgoing mayor.

Georgia also has not elected a Democratic governor in nearly three decades, though it has elected Democrats to the U.S. Senate three times since 2020 and seems poised to reelect one this year.

There's also the fact of Jackson's money, saturating the state with eight-figure ad buys while Democrats were spending only a fraction of that.

Of course, money alone can't buy a victory: Kemp defeated Stacey Abrams in each of the last two races for governor, despite being comfortably outraised and outspent each time.

But Bottoms currently trails Ossoff by five points in an election cycle expected to be quite beneficial to their party.

It seems the race will serve as an indicator of how fresh the summer of COVID-19 still feels for Georgians.

"To the kind of voter that Jackson is courting, it probably is true that had Democrats [instead] nominated the mayor of Macon [a smaller Georgia city], they would be in a stronger position than nominating the mayor of Atlanta, especially one who was in power during those years," Jilani tells Reason. "If he wins, it demonstrates that that is still a fairly potent line of attack."

The post Atlanta's Former Mayor Is Running for Georgia Governor. The 2020 Protests Could Cost Her the Race. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Brickbat: Teaching While Intoxicated

2026-10-21T08:00:32Z

Katharine Viviano, a first-grade teacher at Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Peters Township, Pennsylvania, faces a charge of public drunkenness after officials said she became intoxicated at school and left her students unattended. According to police, Viviano left during the school day to buy alcohol, and when she returned, she hit another vehicle in the school parking lot. She later went into the bathroom attached to her classroom and refused to come out; another teacher found her in the bathroom semi-conscious. School staff initially believed Viviano was having a medical emergency, and they moved her students to another classroom and then to a playground while they dealt with the situation. Viviano reportedly smelled of alcohol, with slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. Authorities say she admitted drinking vodka earlier in the day.

The post Brickbat: Teaching While Intoxicated appeared first on Reason Magazine.